Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 5

< 4 November	6 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone would like to work on this article and bring it up to our standards for inclusion, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to put it in your user space. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Sapone[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To be a smartass, just read the article. To be more serious, massive BLP failure, the article does nothing but disparage the individual and gets by with the journalistic "alleged". Unencyclopedic. Keegan (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how a neutral biography can be written from the rumours and allegations that make up the bulk of the cited sources. Kevin (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the sources/references, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, indicate, the subject has received extensive, high-level news coverage. While some of the matters involved may be "alleged," there's certainly enough factual information to write an encyclopedic article. It may be difficult to sort out the hard facts and the well-sourced allegations from the rumor and innuendo, but we don't delete articles just because doing them right may be more difficult than the average article. Otherwise articles like Sarah Palin and America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 might be ready to get the boot. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the basis of this article's existence is unproven allegations. @harej 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basis of the article is reliably reported material in major national newspapers. The tone, however, does need some adjustment, but that;s a matter of editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I got over 7000 Google hits. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: don't rely on Google's estimates -- always scan to the end. I get 307 for "Mary McFate", 185 for "Mary Lou Sapone", and 105 for "Mary Sapone". • Anakin ^(talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm concerned about the article's accuracy and neutrality, but I believe the sources satisfy notability, and NOT#NEWS. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable, and the notability is covered in third-party reliable sources. The notability is for more than just a single event - the person has become notable themselves. Agree with Anakin that neutrality, etc. needs to be addressed, but that's not a ground for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on notability, but I'm surprised that "Mary McFate" was her maiden name. Sounds like Marty McFly's cousin, the palmreader. Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the tone of the article may be unencyclopedic, the subject is not. Notable enough for inclusion, so keep and then rewrite to address neutrality concerns. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of the opinion that Mary Lou Sapone comes under the heading of People notable only for one event and should be judged accordingly. Basically, her only notoriety is based on the Brady Campaign spying scandal. Her role in this was significant enough that the article being about her rather being titled "Brady Campaing spying incident", but whether the event itself is notable enough as the subject of a Wikipedia article, or whether this is yet another case of something that belongs on Wikinews being elevated to WP article status, I'm less certain. I'll note that my earlier edits to this article were to move to its own article the material about her daughter-in-law Montgomery McFate, an individual who clearly meets the notability criteria in WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter G Werner (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We shouldn't have such negatively written biographies focused on allegations and suspicions. If someone is able to write an appropriate biography, do so in user space (and {{NOINDEX}} it) and bring it to DRV when it's thought to be ready for the mainspace. Keeping this article now because it can be rewritten to no longer violate the BLP policy doesn't mean it will be rewritten. In fact, it's much more likely it won't be improved, at least not anytime soon. If someone is interested in doing it now, do it. Lara 17:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Ubuntu Netbook PartitionTable Remix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is only a list of instructions, and it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Here's why: it's unsourced. Also, I encourage the author to take a look at WP:NOTGUIDE, which explains what is and what is not fit for an encyclopedia. Airplaneman ^talk 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely the wrong wiki for this sort of thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree Power.corrupts (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not a manual. Singularity42 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Raczynski[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. Pretty obvious as to why. Unsourced BLP going back over 2 years now, no evident notability that can be confirmed through reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a) as not yet notable per WP:MUSIC; (b) sources are dubious, except one review from San Francisco; (c) BLP violations and "rumours" galore. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, discussion below. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep Vusys (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion and not a vote, would you please explain? JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets at least 1, 5 and 10 of WP:MUSIC. Vusys (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep He meets point 5 of musician notability - among the other (extremely) notable electronic musicians on Rephlex's roster are Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, µ-Ziq, and Luke Vibert. Apart from that, he recently released a collaboration with Bjork. taras (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
facts Do a google search. Guy works with Aphex Twin's record label Rephlex, has interviews in various magazines, has an entry on allmusic.com, has a 10 year discography noted at discogs.com, worked with Bjork, copious amounts of youtube fan videos, various fan-made myspace accounts, a review on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/vb3n Need I go on? There is a problem with the article in that it needs more sources, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted, what it needs is more sources. Overzealous AFD imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xltronic master (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC) — Xltronic master (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep agree with overzealous nomination, and the indiscriminate tossing out of "unsourced BLP" - there is no contentious info there - there is no deadline either for article improvement, and articles are not deleted for currently being unsourced or for being in a bad shape, but for being unsourceable and for having no potential for improvement, which is "obviously" not the case here. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Over zealous? Hardly. Stuff your personal attacks in a sock dude. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst there are issues regarding unsourced parts of the article, these parts ahould either be sourced or removed until they can be. That leaves only the question of his notability, which can be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in AllMusic Guide, SF Weekly, and Uncut Magazine all found with only a brief internet search. He's released many albums on Rephlex Records, which seems to meet criteria 5 of the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats the deal with the BBC source? It cites Wikipedia and looks like a scraper page. I personally find it unfit for Wikipedia as a cite. [1] I'm confused because ordinarily I would have thought BBC to be a reliable source, but wtf is this? JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanking Dylan for writing this - "no evident notability" made me rage. With a little amount of work, which this deletion marking will certainly bring it, the article can be sufficiently cleaned up. Ventolin (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With a little work, this article will be sufficiently cleaned up. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rogo's[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A neologism used at a local bar. No third-party, reliable sources that the phrase has achieved any notability. Singularity42 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no sources. GreyWyvern (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find sources, slang, very local usage Power.corrupts (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Note that three or more of the keep votes were issued by the same user. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-Tech Redneck (song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another low-charting song with an unsourced stub of an article; simply charting is not a free pass to notability. I have searched but been unable to find anything that would expand this beyond a stub, and the author has no intention of ever making this a redirect. Compare If I Was a Drinkin' Man, which was successfully deleted here for much the same reason, despite being a chart single in its own right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The personal animus that TenPoundHammer had against the song If I Was A Drinkin' Man(a hit single by Neal McCoy) was over the top. The song went to #16 in BILLBOARD!!! and was a significant career single for Neal McCoy on Atlantic Records. TenPoundHammer also refused to believe the song was an ASCAP Award winner. Any article about a song/single that wins an ASCAP Award for one of the "most performed Country songs" of the year, should not be deleted, but I gave in to TenPoundHammer's persistent self-perceived authority. Here again folks, we have another incident where TenPoundHammer's actions are running good less-experienced editors off of Wikipedia, and for every good editor he runs off, there are probably several others who out of anger and frustration turn to rogue behavior and become vandals that we all have to contend with. Perhaps TenPoundHammer needs to read some of the points under Wikipedia:Signs of disruptive editing.Wikibones (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibones, please take a deep breath and remain calm. Accept that different editors have different philosophies when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Some are inclusionist and some are deletionist. You should consider the possibility that TPH's nom of the article for AfD was in his/her good faith to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with small articles of dubious notability, rather than a vendetta against yourself, George Jones, or country music in general.

This nom is about High-Tech Redneck (song) and it's bad form to bring up a nom's past AfD actions as reasoning to keep the article in question. If you have a problem with TPH as an editor, take it to the noticeboard. Do not cloud up this AfD, thanks. GreyWyvern (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it charted. Nothing else really notable about it. GreyWyvern (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather this opinion is intended to reverse or qualify WP:NSONG's provision that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable", or is it that whatever chart this is on is not significant, or that position 24 out of 60 is too low to consider? DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too low to consider (It was 75 spaces at the time). The country charts are very lopsided; anything below #20ish is getting far less airplay than even something at #10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. The motive of TenPoundHammer here is and continues to be especially determined to destructively delete a song article that happen to be of a song (an actual single by the artist) that was also a "title cut", being the same title as the album article TenPoundHammer created or contributed to. This focus by TenPoundHammer to redirect hit single song articles to his own album articles in this manner is extremely restrictive of wiki content. His arbitrary judgement of this well-known significant hit single in the career of George Jones as "not noteworthy" is a rediculous and uneducated stance. Every fan of George Jones and country fan in general knows this song as being associated with George Jone's career, especially the come-back portion of George's career marked by the High-Tech Redneck album singles.Wikibones (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG's comment is a red flag, and do I read it right as a highly civil understated slap (?). Deserves some investigation. Song is mentioned in a large number of music encyclopedias [2], and seems to been so influential, that a whole Tour was named after it Away down South: a history of Southern identity‎ - Page 226 "Finally, even country music legend George Jones got into the act with his 1993 hit "High- Tech Redneck" and his subsequent "High-Tech Redneck Tour. ..." 55 hits on Gbooks is not bad at all and raises serioius doubts about the nominees confident assertaion: "I have searched but been unable to find anything that would expand this beyond a stub". Power.corrupts (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your support PC. There is sufficient reason also to make the distinction here between single and album anyway. The album was titled after the hit single. Please take another look. I think my reasons are valid. Thank you very much!Wikibones (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It went gold [3]; it's looked at alternatively as a hit novelty song or as something that George Jones's fans would prefer to forget [4]; he's been known to open his concerts with it [5]. All I know is that it still gets played on the radio. My startling vision of the future... fifty years from now, people will hear the lyric "Mayberry meets Star Trek" and wonder what "Mayberry" and "Star Trek" were. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford, and absolutely keep per Power corrupts.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough chart. Cynof Gavuf 12:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out to me that the album of the same title went gold, not the song, and that we have an article about the album -- until now, didn't know, didn't care. Maybe the more obvious thing to do would be to merge the two articles (since High-Tech Redneck is the name of both an album and a song), so that this wasn't a debate about whether the song is notable enough for its own page (I think it's notable enough). I'd say merge, but then somebody would feel compelled to admonish me with "AfD is not for merges!!!". Then again, that's from the same school of thought that thinks that there should be three articles called High-Tech Redneck (i.e., the song, the album, and the dab page). Quietly merge the articles, and I doubt anyone will spin them back apart. Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In defense against TPH's back room lobbying to anyone who posts "keep" on here, there very well needs to be a distinction between the single and the album, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that they are the same title, and especially on such a highly promoted and successful single. Assuming that Wikipedia IS a research tool, and really an encyclopedia, it would seem quite silly that no one can go Wikipedia to research the album without being able to get the details for the successful singles from the album. In the case of TenPoundHammer, he seems more concerned about the ambiguity with his article, which of course wouldn't really be much of an article without all the singles associated with the album. Remember too that there wouldn't be a High-Tech Redeck (album), without the High-Tech Redneck (song). TPH's destructive edit on this issue (AND NUMEROUS OTHERS) continue to be restrictive of Wiki content. At least in this case he has allowed discussion, which has not always been case. Often TPH acts and doesn't ask ANYONE. Such actions are in violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikibones (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there "needs" to be a separate article for the album and each of the singles on the album, particularly if only one of the album cuts was considered notable in its own right. When only the title cut is notable, of course, someone looking for "High Tech Redneck" would be better off looking at an article that mentioned everything on one page. We've come a long way since the days when every song on an album, every TV episode or TV character, every college athlete, etc. , was "entitled" to an article. However, this comes down to a keep or delete, and the issue is whether this song is notable enough for an article of its own. The song is a well-known George Jones staple. I only hear it on the radio, and I don't buy albums, so the information about which album it was on is trivia in the mp3 age. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hit singles (song articles) are separate resources, with individual content relative their own unique historical contribution to an artists career. Missing from album articles is the content that is specific to those singles or song articles (eg. songwriter credits, award acheivements, chart numbers, links to albums that also contain the same song, links to the songwriter for the research of other material written by that writer, lyrics of interest, etc). This is what I mean by "restricting wiki content". By merging the song article into an album article, everything I have mentioned above in parenthesis is lost. TPH has asked me "Don't you think one longer article is better than two articles?". These are not two articles about the same thing. One is a single song article. One is an album article. Broader wiki content and a deeper resource for research is being destroyed by merging. It isn't about promoting any elements of the product. It is about providing users of Wikipedia the most detail possible, and the specific details related to a succession of hit singles (usually only 3 or 4) released from a noteworthy album is too valuable to lose by merging.Wikibones (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber agression in the workplace[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay on how to avoid cyber agression on the workplace. Delete Secret ^account 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useable information contained in the article should probably just be merged with workplace aggression. GreyWyvern (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Fall of the Real RocknRolla[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the guidelines for future films and doesn't have any sources to confirm that the film actually exists. I'm pretty sure it's a hoax. Lugnuts (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Mr. Chill GreyWyvern (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article most likely should be merged into another article as the subject is really rather limited. Why not have articles for any number of political and philosophical thinkers and anarchy? Soxwon (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article reads like an essay, seems to me more of an WP:OR synthesis of the referenced articles rather than documenting them. GreyWyvern (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is a f**cking serious article created two days ago by someone who clearly has considerable (if not downright impressive) specialist knowledge. Editors like him are the type of content providers we really should cater for and treat well. The two delete rationales above read something like: "I'm not sure I understand this, think it should be merged with something else, or better just delete it". Gbooks "Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche" [6] returns approx 1,200 hits - a crude first proxy for justification for an article. The article creator is a member of the Wikipedia Anarchism task force. I suggest this nomination is thown out as poorly reasoned, and we then give this task force the necessary time to work on the article and straighten out whatever issues there may be. If the nominee is seriously concerned about something, the appropriate action would be to start a dialogue at the talkpage, not to reach out for the shotgun as the default action Power.corrupts (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Power Corrupts. Philosophy is one of Wikipedia's weaker subjects, and the correlation between the article's two subjects is notable as it has been commentated upon and evaluated in third-party sources. Eduen obviously has specialized knowledge of this subject and he should be encouraged to rework the article to prune out the aspects of it that appear to be OR. I'm not opposed to a future nomination if the article appears to be inescapable from OR but for now I think we should let the article-building process occur naturally. Them From Space 21:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep:hello. As i read Wikipedia:No original research it doesn´t hold on for this article. anarchists have loved nietzsche since the XIX.--Eduen (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep There was a point around the turn of the last century that Anarchism was the philosophy that the man was most associated with. Any coverage of Nietzsche without this article is sorely lacking. Zazaban (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the only reason given for deletion is that this might be better covered in another article, I would remark that the appropriate article is already too long and so summary style suggests having particular subjects treated in separate articles. This doesn't seem to be a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Goggin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN individual, seems like a genealogy project of someone relatives, only sources are census records, legal certificates, etc, no other sources found. Delete Secret ^account 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable individual, cannot see evidence of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's not even really an assertion of notability. In any case, wikipedia is not a repository for family genealogy research. -- Whpq (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Madigan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced bio of seemingly non-notable journalist. Sole claim to notability seems to be having worked on a local current affairs television show at one point. Speedy and Prod declined by a series of SPAs. Hairhorn (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, could not find any significant media mentions. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - absolutely no assertion of notability; unsourced BLP; no evidence of any reliable sources exist at all, see [7]; there is another woman with the same name who might be notable, see [8]. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - notability issue - unless the article is updated with reliable sources and edited to show notability. AlexGWU
Speedy Delete WP:A7 - No indication of notability. Unsourced. Can't find any relevant or usable google hits, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care and Concern Research Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable club Pdcook (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't even assert notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article itself and this AfD come up in a Google search for the article name in quotes before anything else :shrug: Could not find any significant sources for this. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreyWyvern; no evidence this is a notable charity; only two unrelated Ghits outside of webhosts, see [9]. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a nice bunch, but delete given lack of notability. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VisitWiltshire[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. We cannot have articles for every local government idea or body, particularly when they fail our base standards. Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom GreyWyvern (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.visitwiltshire.co.uk/site/visitwiltshirefaqs -- Whpq (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketbook (study guide)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product due to no coverage per WP:RS. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this student newspaper article, but student newspapers generally are not held to be reliable sources, and in any case, this is the only coverage I could find. I found more stuff on the ebook reader of the same name. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Mendes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

biography article based on the one event of his murder and one news source. Not notable and WP:NOTNEWS. No assertion of encyclopedic significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Secret ^account 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable for the area in that it brought up the basic "what are we teaching out kids..." discussion. I can find sources for this debate soon, but it's late now. By the way, I didn't intentionally write, "this is notable..." stuff into the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Cape Cod Times charges for archive use, so I ditched them. I did add a Fox News and a Boston Globe source. I can find more, but that will require significant digging. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources can be easily found on the subject, I remembered this case when it came out on CNN, etc, but it died down after a day or two, I don't see why this article is newsworthy enough for it's own page. If an article is created on every piece of news that makes the Associated Press rounds, it will easily be in the millions. WP:NOTNEWS was created for a reason. Secret ^account 14:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Fight Dragons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. The supposed notability here is highly questionable, all sources related to the subject are blogs and fan reviews. JBsupreme (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete. The article is not cited to reliable sources and the band does not meet the notoriety criteria for musicians and ensembles. See my explanation on the discussion page. I also suspect that the contributions (and edits to keep it only positive) are a result of the band's fans who, I suspect, will overwhelm this voting process with positive votes notwithstanding the fact that the band clearly doesn't (yet, at least) meet the critera for inclusion. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Felt I had to change to Strong Delete because Ludasaphire apparently changed his/her vote to Weak Delete based on someone adding a reference to Last.fm which is freely editable and, in fact, encourages unsigned artists like IFD "to promote their music." Last.fm bills itself as a "music service powered entirely by its community of listeners." So, the same people (fans?) who are updating Wikipedia are also updating Last.fm. Just as circular and, one would think, unacceptable as citing news sources that rely on Wikipedia. Worse, in fact, since unlike Wikipedia, self promotion is encouraged on Last.fm which doesn't even hold itself out to be a news source. BloomingtonBeat (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Some of the references are not trivial, but page is definitely a victim of WP:fancruft relative to their notability. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is worse than Cruft. It is self-promotion, IMO, of a non-notable band. I do not see notability established in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As a previous editor of the page, I may be biased, but I can with complete certainty state that this page is, at worst, cruft. I personally know several of the other major contributors to the page and can vouch that it is not at all self-promotion. That being said, I do feel some of the sources are non-trivial, but that is a debate to be had in the discussion of this article.--Iaman (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion this passes the notoriety criteria for musicians and ensembles as discussed on the discussion of the article. Cfilorux (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete": I like the band ~~but~~and this article ~~doesn't~~is starting to do them justice ~~at all~~. Still needs reliable sources, though, since the only reliable source referenced is a review in a college paper that criticizes the band for having a lead singer who "lacked vocal range" and failing to harmonize which, according to the reviewer, "killed their overall impact." Not a good indicator of notability and, based on my personal experience, not an accurate reflection of the band. I say we do the band a favor by deleting this article now and start over with a clean slate when the band achieves notability as reflected in reliable sources. Ludasaphire (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hunter (photographer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE/promo page/fails coverage guidelines. The article claims his blog has become an internet phenomenon, but I don't see any real coverage of it. The refs offered are mostly just galleries where Hunter is credited as the photographer with one ref giving him a passing mention as a model's boyfriend. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little notability is asserted; what's asserted is unsourced. "Internet phenomenon" is a convenient weaselterm. This humble comment of mine appears on the internet, and I suppose its appearance is a phenomenon. Of course it's not what some hack working for Variety might gush was a "phenomenon" (or "phenom" or whatever's the latest gushterm). Phenomenology aside, the article states that The blog [...] since been featured in The Los Angeles Times , The New York Times, Nylon Magazine, the LA Weekly and a number of other arts, culture, and fashion publications. Commendably, it gives a link for each of the four rags/mags; however, of the four, a grand total of zero seem to discuss the blog; certainly none "features" it according to any meaning of "feature" with which I'm familiar. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, as consensus here indicates that deletion is not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh, barbarian 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism in North America[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article duplicates content in other articles and provides an original synthesis of sources to develop a concept of North American conservatism. Although several articles have been written comparing Tories in Canada and Republicans in the US, there is little or no literature comparing conservatism in those countries with Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The supposed duplication of information only exists in the Canada section and the United States section; they serve as summaries of the Conservatism in Canada article and the Conservatism in the United States article. This is standard practice as outlined here. As I stated in the merge discussion, conservatism in North America has been studied as a concept unto itself as separate from conservatism throughout the rest of the world and therefore deserves its own article. See this book [10] for information about a conference dedicated to conservatism in North America as a continent. There are strong historical connections between conservatism in Carribean countries and there are strong historical connections between conservatism in Central American countries. Conservatism in the Northern American countries, the United States and Canada, has been widely compared and contrasted in political literature and such comparison is worthy of encyclopaedic attention. The best way of addressing these connections is the solution which already exists: the existence of the Conservatism in North America article. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "North America" referred to in the book is limited to the United States and Canada. The majority of the book treats conservatism in the two countries separately. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There does not seem to be an overriding "North American conservatism" apart from the conservatism in the various individual countries, which is best covered in their individual articles. I appreciate the work that Neelix has done, but this is essentially a one-person article, and I do not think the subject is notable. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete This seems to be a collection of mini-articles about conservatism in various countries. There doesn't seem to be an over-all "North American conservatism." Northwestgnome (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article does not assert that there is an overriding "North American conservatism." Just as the Religion in Europe article discusses the various forms of religion throughout the continent even though there is no overriding European religion, it is important for there to be a Conservatism in North America article to explain the differences, similarities, and interactions between the forms of conservatism present in North America. Neelix (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real reason even proffered for deletion. An article on (say) African Politics would not require that all African nations have identical political systems, so that sort of argument fails. Collect (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Conservatism in North America varies in form from country to country, but is consistent in its attempt to preserve heritage and tradition" what does even mean? Its a sketchy article.--Milowent (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point, the article does a good job summarizing the ideology in each of the various nations that make up North America. A couple of the arguments for deletion take issue with it being a collection of 'mini-articles about conservatism in various countries' and lacking an 'overriding North American conservatism'. If the article was 'North American conservatism', I would wholly agree with that. But as 'Conservatism in North America', the article delivers what it promises - a summary of the state of conservatism in North American countries that do not warrant individual articles (or sections in that country's main article). Furthermore, it appears to be very well-referenced.
As for the issue of original synthesis, unless it exists throughout the article (I couldn't find it), instances of it would best be addressed and resolved individually.
-K10wnsta (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a good article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kepp votes not well grounded in policy while the delete arguments have policy on their side Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh University Politics Society[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student club, ~~precisely zero~~ few Google News, Books, and Scholar hits. Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scotland Herald has a whole paragraph on it. Politician web sites mention it frequently. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, has some mentions in the news. BBC says, "Mr Morgan will also give a speech on devolution at Edinburgh University's politics society." (Note the decapitalization). The Herald says, "EDINBURGH University Politics Society was yesterday treated to a Euro-election hustings, with contributions from assorted Euro politicians. During an address from Tory MEP John Purvis, the students received an odd lesson in biology and cookery. In a revelation which may alienate the Tories' traditional farming vote, John spoke of getting chops from a cow. One audience member seemed impressed by Tory ingenuity, however. Paraphrasing the old Knorr TV advert in which a couthy crofter expresses surprise at his wife's ability to conjure pea and ham soup from left-over chicken, he observed: "Chops from a coo? Now that's clever."" Two other articles exist, but they seem to be about other things, with perhaps another speech in front of the society mentioned. I don't see this as extending notability to this student club. Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - student societies need to meet WP:ORG and the sources identified thus far fall well short. TerriersFan (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found hundreds of hits on Google - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you click on the second page of that Google search, you found 107. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've normally been quite restrictive in this area of student societies, and I see no reason to change it. If we ever do a Wikipedia Local, there would be a place. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because most student groups aren't notable doesn't mean this one isn't. I live in Edinburgh and have previously seen this group mentioned in local and national papers, I can't cite that I haven't saved all the news paers I've read over the years. Stupidstudent (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to University of Edinburgh. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are less notable edinburgh university groups see template.

And if it's to be merged it should be merged to the students association not university article. Stupidstudent (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each has to be taken on it's own merits. For example, the Plinian Society was founded in 1823 and counts Charles Darwin among its members. Since they are about natural history, the connection to Darwin means something. So Wikipedia can (in fact must) have an article on the Plinian Society. Abductive (reasoning) 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable, as explained by that notorious deletionist DGG! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Maryville First Baptist Church shooting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pastor was killed in a shooting. Sad as this is, it is simply another news report of a shooting. These things grab headlines for a few days and then are forgotten. Just because something is newsworthy doesn't make it encyclopedic (WP:NOTNEWS). I can't see here any assertion that this event had wider or ongoing social, cultural or legal significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, then it's because it was reported nationally and beyond. I seem to recall the BBC picked up the story. Other than that, it's just another tragic head-case. Rklawton (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NOT policy states that Wikipedia isn't the place for routine news. It has little else to say about news other than clarifying the difference between an event and persons caught up in an event. I'm pretty sure a pastor getting shot in front of his congregation is without precedent. As a minimum, it's not routine - and so passes the requirements laid out in NOT. Wikipedia:News articles puts a better perspective on news-notability but it's just an essay and not policy. Though I believe this article satisfies even those guidelines. Rklawton (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the time it was news, but since then only local coverage has continued, so it fails per WP:NOTNEWS. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote which part of NOT this fails. Rklawton (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit of it. Wikipedia is not a set of hard and fast rules.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - NOT lists the types of news events which should not be published, and this article doesn't come close to those crossing those lines. As a result, it couldn't violate this so called "spirit". Rklawton (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it is true that Wikipedia has "no set of hard and fast rules", then obviously it is not necessary to delete an article for allegedly violating the "spirit" one of these "rules" which is not so "hard and fast". Rklawton (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was a tragic incident, but the passage of the months has shown that this was not any more historically notable than any other homicide. Rklawton is right that the coverage now is all local [11]. A redirect to Maryville, Illinois would be appropriate. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if we're going to delete something for lack of notability, the least we can do is point out where the article fails to satisfy policy. Simply saying an event which received international coverage isn't notable doesn't make it so. No one has been able to say according to *this* criteria in *this* policy, the article isn't notable - yet our notability policies are full of criteria and examples of what events that don't qualify. This just isn't one of them. Rklawton (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because we don't work like that, and no such "policy criteria" exists. If you are referring to the notability guidelines then remember they are guidelines and not rules. In any case the guidelines are supposed to reflect what the community tends to do when it discuses things, they do not proscribe in any way. Personally, I never read them, and I am not obliged to do so.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Had no idea that an article created by an administrator could be the subject for deletion-debate and not be overriden by the administator himself. It exhibits impartiality, which I guess is good and healthy--Ahimsa09 (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Trust me, administrators are no brighter than you or I. They do an excellent job for no remuneration and they volunteer to take on a task that most of us would not want to do. However, similar to that first time you ever realized that your schoolteachers weren't infallible, you eventually see that admins are ordinary people who have taken on an extraordinary workload. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put! Such "extraordinary workload" could also lead to extraordinary lapse or misconceptions or presumptions. Thanksfully, not all minds function alike and the good result is enlightenment. Thus, where there's darkness, light delights.--Ahimsa09 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the NOT policy (and NOT is policy) provides several examples of news events that do not meet notability guidelines. This article very clearly satisfies the notability requirements listed in NOT, so it should not be deleted. The event received international coverage. And why wouldn't it? I don't think anyone can recall a time when a pastor was murdered during a service in front of his congregation. That makes this a unique event (and therefore notable). I have no doubt this event will be cited should a similar murder ever again occur. Lastly, as a reminder to the closing administrator, the AfD page is not a vote or a consensus building exercise. It is a collection of facts and opinions that the closing administrator should carefully evaluate when making his or her decision. Folks in favor of deletion argue "spirit" (or claim they don't read policy anyway), whereas to me it is clear this event received the appropriate coverage and is sufficiently unique. Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 24, 1980, a sniper shot Archbishop Oscar Romero to death as he celebrated Mass at a hospital chapel in San Salvador. Ahimsa09 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic content. Abductive (reasoning) 10:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOS (drink)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of several non-notable energy drinks. Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Orangemike suggests, just one of many similar drinks, and not notable in any way. For those who think a Google search is a good measure of notability I have done one. Apart from the manufacturer's site and other sites advertising and/or selling the drink, I found a large number of mentions on MySpace, Facebook, etc, together with other sites where anyone can create pages, a couple of pages making jokes out of NOS, etc etc. No significant independent coverage at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Apart from it being a sponsor for Toyota cars, apparently, there is some coverage and maybe it's worth giving a better look before deleting. A Gnews search (explictly excluding Toyota) finds stuff, among those a couple of links where it seems discussed controversially in New Zealand: [12] [13] ; other links: [14] , [15], and an award won by the drink here: [16]. There are also some links which seem interesting but require payment. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A product sold all over the world seems notable enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major product from major company. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MelodyVision Song Contest[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stuff simply isn't verifiable. There's no coverage in independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete Likely a hoax.Anonimu (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MelodyVision appears to exist as some kind of fan created spin-off of Eurovision on YouTube [17] [18] and gets a mention on blog at the EBU's site. [19]. The article content bars some relation to this website [20] though it appears to be fantasy based and the current articles seem to be written in an in-universe style. In any case all the sources I have found are non-reliable/user created so the article wouldn't pass WP:V / WP:RS / WP:N. The article creator seems determined to stop this AfD, though he does not seem to be a strong speaker of English and is rather young hence perhaps why he is making strange edits such as this [21]. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the EBU which runs the Eurovision Song Contest, MelodyVision is an "online world song contest" [22]. My impression is that it is just some random person's idea for a contest and people vote for which previously released songs are to represent which countries via an online vote, while the actual singers probably have no idea and no stake in the contest whatsoever. Not a hoax, just not notable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. As online contest, there are hundreds of those run by ESC fans and none of them are notable, but the article is obviously giving fake information, stating the organizing cities etc i.e. pretending the contest to be real one. Also, Eurovision Family blogs are not associated with EBU, it is purely fan made content. Anyone can create a blog there and write whatever he wants.AlexeyU (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MelodyVision. Barocci 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing_machine. merging from one incredibly long titled article to another article witha slightly less long title Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Smith (The Simplest Universal Computer Proof contest winner)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of media coverage of this individual. Sources are mainly not independent of the prize he won. Itsallacademic (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Weak Keep. Deletion rationale no longer true due to addition of inline citations. It is also explicitly stated in WP:BLP1E that:
If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.
Since this is a significant and widely covered event the biography falls within this exemption.Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing_machine. The BLP section you quote mentions John Hinckley, Jr.. ... ! I don't think you can compare a Presidential assassination attempt with someone who proved an obscure mathematical model which even Mr. Wolfram himself says doesn't (yet) have any practical application. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being covered by Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist et al. does not look like an obscure event to me. And Mathematics concepts do not need to have a practical application for them to be notable. This is not Engineering. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if your name is Andrew Wiles and solved a famous conundrum that had been plaguing mathematicians since 1637... My apologies to Mr. Smith if he is reading this, but only two of the listed references go into much more detail than "Student solves problem and wins $25,000". And of those two, the first spends about 90% of the article building up Wolfram's theory and mentions Alex in the last few sentences, while the second cautions that the proof is still not accepted by a number of qualified experts besides Wolfram and may not even be valid. This is just not enough notability IMHO to deserve a biographical WP article. GreyWyvern (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also does not meet the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as I am fairly certain a $25,000 award from one professor for proving his theorem does not count as a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. GreyWyvern (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit you raise some good points. I'll change my vote to weak keep due to the fact that while your analysis covers the higher end of notability maybe this article is near the bottom end of the scale. However it could well be that I am wrong and the article falls off the scale altogether. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This certainly seems an interesting and significant result. If it's notable for Nature, New Scientist, and Scientific American, that more than establishes notability. The result appears to be technical and obscure, but its importance should be evident to most computer scientists. Notability does not require solving Fermat's Last Theorem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources added assert notability of subject (though a less cumbersome title could perhaps be introduced) Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolfram's 2-state 3-symbol Turing machine. BLP1E is in full effect here. Abductive (reasoning) 10:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as explained several times above: BLP1E. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Obviously this debate centred pretty heavily on NOTNEWS. The proponents of deletion followed the idea that the incident was a news story not worthy of an encyclopedia article. There was also a BLP concern, which was also articulated quite nicely. The proponents of keeping the article were mostly either saying the event was getting significant enough coverage to count, that the incident was unique enough, or that it passed our notability criteria for criminal acts. Both sides made their case well, although the insight in the comments tends to peter out once all the main points have been made; as is often the case with these sized AfDs. Given how well both sides made there case, it is quite clear there wasn't a consensus to delete or keep; although I would encourage everyone participating to add this article to their watchlists; as there are going to be ongoing BLP concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Richmond High School gang rape[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No doubt a fairly horrible event that has stirred up a lot of media attention, but I'm unconvinced that's it anything else but a WP:NOT#NEWS violation. It's also an utter BLP nightmare in waiting, although that's a secondary concern. Black Kite 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The "not a vote" box is not supposed to be used as a deterrent to discussion. It's something that is appropriate to add only when it appears that !votes are being solicited, not for the possibility that it might happen. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: appears to pass WP:N/CA, the policy guideline for articles on criminal acts. Actually, this piece is precisely what led to WP:N/CA, and passes with flying colors. In addition, CBS news, ABC News, CNN, NPR, NY Times, USA Today, Newsweek, and The View, as well as international publications as far away as India have covered the event. Gaining notability daily. A very strong case for KEEP Richmondian (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Richmondian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nomination, was tempted to Afd it myself... ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notnews. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strong support for the nominators rationale. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huh, you have been editing it and now you now want to delete it? Richmondian (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While it exists it has to comply with WP:BLP, hence my edits and those of Off2riorob. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. It might in future prove to be a Genovese like case but at the moment it's not notable. NtheP (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really not notable??? where does it fail?

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources,"^[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[3]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[4]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.^[5]

From your comment "such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." It does. Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, so is it safe to say it meets notability, but fails another policy, "what wikipedia is not"? Richmondian (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

# News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. ... --- this case is not routine coverage of announcements, sports, tabloid journalism etc. Richmondian (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS should not be ignored by saying "but thsi really is news". There's no evidence of lasting wider significance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not news. If in the long term there proves to be enough ongoing coverage to give an article then it could be created. In the meantime however, it is a BLP issue waiting to happen. Quantpole (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uhh guys, not news is about minor events, stories etc, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." NOT about major events. Richmondian (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:News articles - "Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance. But a crime that led to a significant change in the law, an event that actually became a sensation, or a death that led to new safety practices, may have long-term encyclopedic value, and could merit an article if sufficient secondary sources were available to establish its importance." Note use of words like could merit or actually became, there is no doubt that this is an unpleasant event but there is nothing yet to suggest that it will become of encyclopedic importance. If it does then there should be an article but until that time, it would probably be better off on wikinews.org NtheP (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I started reading that but I see that it is "an essay" not a wikipedia policy, I thought we were supposed to follow policies, not essays? I looked at other essays and there was some weird stuff. Richmondian (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an essay but one referenced by the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and gives an insight into where the policy comes from.

Why do I say this is non-notable. Basically nothing has been proved yet; it's an alleged assault and sexual assault case, allegedly committed by a gang of men in their teens and twenties and where witness are reported to have turned a blind eye to the events and to have even filmed it (note all the emphasis is from the article, not by me). So at the moment there are no facts established about the events of the night in question other than a 15 year old girl being admitted to hospital with injuries possibly commensurate with assault and rape. On that basis I'd say that on the criteria you quoted from WP:GNG this is currently failing on both Reliable and Presumed NtheP (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VERY MUCH Nthep, I really appreciate the time and this is a very englightening debate. After going back to the article I see something another editor posted -- this meets a policy guideline specifically designed for criminal acts called WP:N/CA. It is meant to settle notability debates (which apparently often come down to "not news"). I have pasted part of it below and encourage all weighing in here to read it.

The "allegedly" doesn't change much, does it? If the accused are found not guilty, it doesn't mean the incident didn't happen. No one was arrested for flying two planes into the world trade center but the incident is still described in detail. We might want to remove the accused names if/when that happens (we also have examples of names of people found not guilty -- but that's another thread).

There are many facts established, as much as most facts are established (there isn't video, but there have been many witnesses to various parts of the story). There was a dance, a girl disappeared, that some have said she got intoxicated, was beaten, robbed had sexual contact with multiple males, that police were called, found her beaten underneath a bench, flew her to a hospital, that the community was outraged, had various vigils, etc.

That the accused are guilty in a court of law is not established. But, like I said, that was never established for the 9-11 hijackers either. The standard for many statements (and article existence) isn't testimony in a court of law, it is what is outlined in the notability guidelines.

As for the essay, I believe my first point is still valid, this article meets notability guidelines; that doesn't mean it meets guidelines that are linked to but guidelines that are on that page. Wiki has a lot of linking so its important that we refer to the actually policy not something that is linked to.

When I look at "what wikipedia is not" it refers to "news" as "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", and this is far, far beyond reports of sports scores, etc. There is a link to the "news" essay, but that is only labeled "see also", not a "what this policy really means is over here". I can also guarantee that there is not just a passing interest in this story -- it will reverberate for decades. Any parent with daughters (and many with sons) in that school is considering options for how to get their children out, the school will be sued for millions of dollars, police and security policy has changed already, though in minor ways so far, and will continue to change. This is not WP:CRYSTAL -- I am not going to say this in the article, but having lived through school atrocities of an earlier generation and living in the area for decades. I know this will happen.

The event, to me anyway, is a moment symbolic of the degradation/violence in our urban neighborhoods much like Columbine illuminated the depravity that lurked in the hearts of some non-urban "children" -- and the destruction that a small number of armed students could wreak. I cannot remember a case as awful as this one and many inside (and outside) of law enforcement have said the same. I was also shocked at the no-snitching attitude and awful slang that appeared online, written by other students at the school. Its rare to get a glimpse into that microsociety. The school's pathetic test scores (0% of afr-am and 2% of latino students at grade level in mathematics) are a case study in urban failure. BTW, this is not an isolated case in all ways, as the victim's friend described a homecoming dance rape, but not a gang rape, at another Richmond school which I hadn't heard of. Richmondian (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't get hung up solely on notability, there are also huge BLP issues here that do not exist in the 9/11 related articles. In this case the alleged victim and the alleged attackers are alive and so the BLP policy applies to the article (hence the reminder box on the talk page). – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "deletes" are saying it is non-notable, as far as I can tell it meets WP:N/CA. If BLP is the real issue it can be addressed. I didn't know articles were pre-emptively deleted based on possible, future, BLP violations? OJ Simpson's trial is covered even though he was only an alleged attacker. (yes, he is a celebrity so maybe its OK to mention him but there are many other cases too where non-convictions are described) Richmondian (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is clearly a notable event. I read this under World/Nations in the newspaper. How can it be a minor event when it was listed under World/Nation? Obviously people are reading this from around the world. Xqe (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) — Xqe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (blocked as sock)[reply]

I guess it depends on what country your newspaper is from. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? It doesn't matter which country I'm from. If it says World/Nation, clearly everyone is reading about it. Xqe (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That answers my question. It sounds like you're reading an American newspaper that groups its out-of-state news into a column called "World/Nation". All it means is that the newspaper editor felt it deserved a mention. On page 2, I'd wager. That doesn't mean it's in newspapers all over the world. Mandsford (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of criminal acts (from WP:N/CA)
"Criminal act" includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority. For example, the disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.

Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.
[edit] Multiple, independent sources

This criterion means that multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources. It would therefore be insufficient to base an article on a series of news reports on a crime by a single newspaper or news channel. The requirement for national or global scope refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is. In the case where a television or radio channel has several regional outlets, such as Fox News, one regional station counts as local coverage. Repeating this over multiple stations belonging to the same network that covers an entire country is considered to be a single instance of coverage with national or global scope.

Similarly, where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability decisions. Likewise, when reporters base their information on other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent and so cannot be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets report on a single event separately and without reference to others, these constitute multiple sources.

Finally, media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity to another widely reported incident. For example, the death of Mari Luz Cortés was compared in multiple outlets of the British tabloid press to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight the old event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 November 2009

Keep per meeting notability guidelines. Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. May be worth revisiting in the future to reassess whether it had lasting significance, but a deletion now would be very inappropriate and premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event has minimal context outside of the local event. Were there significant reactions to the event elsewhere in the country (or internationally). Further, most of the story is couched in "allegedly"; as noted by other editors, there are some BLP issues as a result. This is probably an issue better left to Wikinews for now. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS news, ABC News, CNN, NPR, NY Times, USA Today, Newsweek, have all covered the event. I see it picked up in Spanish-speaking publications and here's an Indian(?) paper that covered it http://www.morungexpress.com/morungprofile.html Richmondian (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but currently, the article doesn't reflect that. It has a couple references to ABC News, but from perspective of the article, there is nothing asserting it is more than an event of interest to a small region. Having said that, I did hear this discussed earlier in the week on The View. However, the article doesn't at present assert it's notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can get more in there, actually the cnn coverage has been extensive. Thing is it is mostly in video which is a little awkward to cite. But holy moly I've spent hours on this thing already then people want to delete it. Can you put something about the "view" if this survives? I didn't catch it. (actually there are probably enugh without that, but may diminish some of the criticisms that it is just a news event if non-local commentors have picked it up) Richmondian (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per C.Fred (I was writing essentially the same thing but got EC'ed). While I would not be at all surprised if this event did have the level of lasting effects required to be included per WP:NOT#NEWS, we can't make that prediction now per WP:CRYSTAL. If it weren't for the BLP issues, I'd be more on the fence... MirrorLockup (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG, the baseline of what all articles are judged by. All sources meet WP:V and WP:RS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs to wikinews. No inherent notability of the event (i.e., no broader implications): just another crime duly reported by news. - Altenmann >t 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another confusion of "what is in reliable sources?" and "what is of encyclopedic value?". WP:NOTNEWS to a T. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#NEWS. It might have sources, but I don't think it's encyclopedic. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A terrible attack that is being called "the worst thing I’ve heard of" by 30 year police veterans [23], and highlighted in both national and international media. A two-hour gang rape with seven alleged assailants and perhaps as many as two dozen spectators is not a routine crime anywhere in America. Far more notable than an average crime and easily enough sources to write responsibly about it (3500 google news hits currently [24]). I'd be happier if things like this never happened, but I certainly believe it meets our notability criteria when they do. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, this is a terrible, terrible event, but not of encyclopedic notability- it is getting lots of press now because it happened recently, but I suspect that, even five years from now, there will be few people writing about it. If I'm wrong- if this turns out to be a notable event, which has a long-term effect on the country, or affects changes in law, then it should be written about, but in my opinion, it is not possible to determine now whether or not this is going to be a notable event, or just a terrible crime, widely reported and then forgotten by the press after the trials are concluded. I suggest that we delete the article for now, and revisit the question of whether the even turned out to be encyclopedically important or not, one year after the conclusion of the last trial. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete newsworthy and encyclopedic are not synonyms. This is a news story about a terrible thing, but still just a news story. Reso lute ^{Lest We Forget} 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Weak keep~~ It seems to satisfy WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:N/CA, since it is not a one or two day story, and may have greater societal implications than simple crime and punishment. We do not make crystal ball forecasts of how enduring the coverage of a terrible crime will be, but I note that the coverage of this crime continues every day 2 weeks after the even, where 20 people stood by and did not notify police while a 15 year old girl was allegedly beaten and raped for a couple of hours by a number of men. The bystander apathy, more than the sheer brutality, has shocked the nation and been noted worldwide. The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 is also notable for bystander apathy: 20 people heard her scream for help and did not call police as she was murdered in a protracted stabbing. WP:BLP is not a blanket prohibition against having articles about crimes. We follow the coverage in reliable sources like the press wire services, and do not print names which have not already been widely publicized. Edison (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Switched after reading UltraExactZZ rationale below.Neutral There is the letter of policy to consider, but I don't see any practical and pressing need to delete this. This incident seems like it has the potential to lead to some change in law too, though granted we shouldn't try to predict those things. In the end I have no strong feeling either way. Equazcion (talk) 20:28, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Delete per C.Fred. Crafty (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and Dragons Flight, who hits the high points pretty well. I add that NOTNEWS highlights that the subject of a news story is not necessarily notable, merely because he/she/it has been covered by an independent reliable source. But it also doesn't say that news events such as this are NOT notable simply because they are recent news events. Deletion is premature, here - there are sources, there is continuing interest in the story and information continues to become available. I'd wager that the article itself is vastly different now than when it was nominated, and will continue to change as we go. So long as the article is not a purely negative, unsourced article about living persons, BLP does not demand its deletion. We're expected to use judgement, and my judgement says that this horrible event will have some lasting notability. Others may disagree, which is why we debate such things here - but that's my take. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I have covered many big-city incidents of gang-rape; none of them need an article on Wikipedia, and they don't - WP:NOT#NEWS ... unless, some major Federal Act prohobiting something comes from it, it's really only locally notable. Sure, NBC nightly news might cover it as a "look at what people do at Richmond High, aren't you glad you don't live there", but what does that matter? BLP violations galore. Also check the WP:COI and WP:OR aspects. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any violations of BLP, COI or OR in the current article version. Citing policies in vaguewaves isn't helpful. Also, the coverage is a little more than an aside on NBC Nightly News. Fences&Windows 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – just like with the Colorado balloon hoax, this goes past trivial news coverage, and it looks like there notability is also established. However, someone needs to keep tabs on this article, as this can be a BLP hotbed (*cough* Flagged Revisions *cough*). MuZemike 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) - "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.". From: WP:NOT - "# News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:News articles". The coverage for this event was not routine - it's been extensive, in depth, national in the US and global, and very persistent for many days after the incident. There are introspective features and philosophical considerations as well as factual reporting.

The determination that an event was or was not historically notable is something that has to be made in the future. At this moment, it clearly exceeds the established notability threshold for current events. Where it ends up in a month or six months is another question - but those are questions which must wait for the future.

Perhaps events of this nature happen much more often than they're widely reported - I unfortunately don't doubt that - but when they are reported this widely, that raises the particular incidents notability here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Raises questions about bystanders etc. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, this is a newsworthy event, but not an encyclopedic one. Peacock (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least for now. We actually have a guideline Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which devotes some thought to the issue. Although Wikipedia is not a News bulletin, we can presume notability when there are multiple independent news reports, and this seems to be the case here. The only way to make sure about notability is to wait until the verdict and then count the sources again, or probably even longer (it takes a few years before books are written about criminal cases). Since we don't want to give our editors a hard time unnecessarily, I'd go in case of doubt always with inclusion. Even if this case was not notable now (which would require a closer look at the sources) it is very likely to become notable by the time the process takes place, and then Wikipedia would have to do without an article on the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikinews and DELETE - Typical WP:NOTNEWS. SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't transwiki due to license incompatibility, see WP:Wikinews. Also, this is "stale" for Wikinews as more than three days has passed since the first reports. Fences&Windows 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison and Georgewilliamherbert. The subject meets the general notability guideline, but I understand the WP:NOTNEWS argument. Nevertheless, this is not your everyday police blotter story, as evidenced by the national – in fact, international – media coverage. This is on par with the Central Park jogger rape case, in my opinion. Like that article, this subject absolutely meets the specific notability guideline for criminal acts. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikinews is thataway ----> Guy (Help!) 23:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gang rape of a teenager outside a school with none of the witnesses phoning the police or trying to intervene - indeed, some joining in[25] - isn't run-of-the-mill. There have been vigils held in the local community, showing an impact beyond the immediate trauma to the girl. Those simply citing WP:NOTNEWS have to realise that it does not give carte blanche to delete all events reporting in the media; NOTNEWS is intended to avoid having articles on minor events, but this isn't minor and the reporting of this event is far from routine. It has been reported internationally, and the reporting has not diminished after a fortnight. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is a guideline that applies to this kind of event and the coverage meets the criteria laid out there. There is no doubt that a gang rape occurred, so deletion on BLP grounds seems bizarre. BLP sensitivities have gone too far when Wikipedia treads on eggshells over having articles on crimes while thousands of news reports exist. WP:BLP is not whitewash. Fences&Windows 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChildofMidnight, Georgewilliamherbert and Fences and windows. Notability is established by the many reliable sources covering the event. There is nothing here that hasn't been said in many many other news sources. AfD is not for cleanup: If the article needs to be improved please do so. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a clearcut NOTNEWS issue as demonstrated above. People trying to demonstrate facts from the case somehow make this a big event are missing the point. Those details aren't for us to decide; we go with what is reported and whether that meets the threshold we've set for news. This doesn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an ongoing criminal matter involving minors. Let's use our common sense here and not create an article about an alleged rape of a fifteen-year-old. In the strictest sense, does it meet Wikipedia:Notability? Yes, it probably does. But let's, for a moment, think of something other than Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist. It is merely a news story. Furthermore, we should keep the victims in mind here. We have nothing to gain from this article. We would do well to keep Hippocrates's adage in mind here and do no harm. faithless (^speak) 02:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused about what harm could come of it. The news story has been picked up worldwide, and we're not reporting any personal information on the victim, at least no more than any news source is; even her name seems to be absent from the article. Equazcion (talk) 03:09, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
  - You don't see how an in-depth discussion of the most traumatic experience of a fifteen-year-old girl's life posted on one of the most popular and widely-viewed websites in the world could be damaging? Aside from the potential psychological damage to the victim, this article is a BLP nightmare. Combine that with the fact that having this article in no way benefits Wikipedia, I think this is a pretty easy call. faithless (^speak) 18:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "having this article in no way benefits Wikipedia". Eh? The article gives reliably sourced information on a notable incident. Isn't that what Wikipedia does? Doesn't each additional sourced article on a notable topic add to the encyclopedia? Fences&Windows 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not how it works. Every crime has a victim, and if they're notable we report on them, whether the victim is 15 or 80 or 7. It could be debated philisophically what the costs and benefits are to making public the details of violent crimes, but currently, Wikipedia arrives at the same conclusion that the media of the world does -- that bad things get reported. Equazcion (talk) 01:44, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Keep obviously notable, more than just news like all other sensational items and MUCH more notable than much of what's kept around here (minor turbulence konking someone on the head but not killing them or pieces like blue ice falling out of planes, etc.) If it's a BLP problem, then there seems to be lots of eyes to be kept on it - if we tank articles because of possible BLP issues, we should rename this the Archaeopedia and deal with people dead before the 1500s or so, so that some distant descendant doesn't complain we've maligned his 20X-great-grand ma or pa. Get over it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notnews doesn't apply since this has been a continuing event with international coverage. Notnews is for flash in the pan, not events that have wideranging impact and are resulting in serious discussions about school policies nationwide. There's no BLP concern since the material is all well-sourced. We may want to keep names out but that's a decision that doesn't require deletion of the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event has received extensive news media coverage (thus, it passes GNG). There are unusual aspects to the event -- it's not a "run of the mill" criminal act, but rather is a criminal event that is likely to be remembered for a long time. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS. As Peacock said, it is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Warrah (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. This was just on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, hardly a bastion of sensationalistic crime reporting. Coverage is focusing on why bystanders didn't do anything to stop this, and whether there's a "stop snitching" culture in the neighborhood. Way beyond a simple crime story. We could delete this, maybe we could delete Kitty Genovese too. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong comment - There's not really any point in continuing this. There won't be a consensus. Equazcion (talk) 05:33, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Creator of the article. It's a story with a huge amount of coverage on local sites, and has had the attention of CNN for quite a while, on the front page and whatnot. Cyanidethistles (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - the event only happened a few weeks ago has nothing more than temporal "notability" and will only achieve real notability if the most serious allegations turn out to be true. This is wikinews for now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're proposing that Wikipedia should have a blackout on current events to see whether they become notable? I'd have to say that's not policy, and current events are much easier to write about when still current, as Google News will have many articles in its current index and they won't be hidden behind a paywall. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where there is a strong likelihood of harm, and it is not clear whether something will be notable in the long term, then I would think that it is the sensible thing to do. Bear in mind that vandalism doesn't have to be there for long for google to pick up on it. If someone decides to put the girl's name into the article, even if quickly reverted, there is a chance of serious long term harm. Names of the accused have already been put into the article, and are still in the history for all to see, whether they end up being found guilty or not. Even if this article is deleted later, it will be picked up by wikipedia mirrors. I strongly think that the 'inconvenience' of not having an article on a subject that may indeed prove notable in the long term is outweighed by the potential risks in this particular instance. Quantpole (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible future vandalism/content additions is not valid grounds for deletion. Richmondian (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you've made sound more like arguments for semiprotection ( and revision hiding if unsourced speculation about the victim's name is added ). And I would not consider seeing our potential sources dwindle from thousands to a few regional papers in Google Archives, or having to spend a fortune on LEXIS/NEXIS fees to get a decent article, an "inconvenience". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article can be semiprotected, or fully protected, with any proposed changes done after there is consensus on the talk page. There are precedents for doing that. Any blabbermouth vandal/original research edits with names inappropriately inserted, whether the actual victim/perpetrators or not, can be removed from the history by the oversight process. The names of adult and juvenile suspects charged as adults have been published by the Associated Press [26], in Time magazine [27] and by various newspapers. We cannot "unring a bell" and whether the names of those charged are printed in Wikipedia will not prevent others from finding them. Widespread coverage continues, with these Gogle News articles from the past 24 hours: [28]. The New York Times, LA Times, AP, USA Today, and CBS had new coverage a couple of weeks after the incident. This shows it is far more than a news splash of a couple of days about a routine crime. Edison (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, that isn't what I'm proposing, I'm saying WP:N#TEMP and this doesn't meet it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major event that will likely become historical in the future. Mr. jones999 (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to agree with the feeling that this is a Kitty Genovese story for a generation that has never heard of Kitty Genovese (whose murder was more than 40 years ago). Years after her murder, Ms. Genovese's story was a talking point in schools about the morality of standing by and doing nothing, and I think it's likely that people will be reminded of this incident for many years to come. Not everything that is the news or that is recent is going to be a violation of WP:NEWS or WP:RECENT. I am concerned about WP:BLP. Who's to say that there isn't a Wiki-idiot who goes to Richmond High or who lives nearby, and who wants to share his or her knowledge about the identity of the victim? On the other hand, that could happen just as easily in the article about Richmond High, even if this article is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not yet know what the lasting impact of this incident will be. Those who believe it will become a huge Kitty Genovese story can recreate the article later if that crystal ball prediction comes true. For now the article does not belong here, as FisherQueen's argument has convinced me. ~YellowFives 15:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists love to bring up "crystal ball" in afd's for current events. But go ahead and read WP:CRYSTAL. That policy is about articles on future events, not talk page discussions and not current events. In AFD there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion about the utility of an article. I'm also not impressed by FisherQueen's bizarre suggestion that we wait a year after the conclusion of the last trial to beign writing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying delete doesn't make me a "deletionist." The crystal ball policy speaks generally of expected future notability, and that is what I refer to. We do not know if this is going to be notable in the long run. At the moment it is just a news story and does not belong here. It may become historically notable, but we cannot rely on our speculation to say so. ~YellowFives 20:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a judgment call that people have to make all the time in deciding which events should have articles and which shouldn't, since the alternative would be to have a one-month waiting period before an article could be created. I think that most people would agree that the Fort Hood shootings of yesterday are historically notable. Although it is still speculation, it's a conclusion people would base upon past experience. On the other end of the spectrum, I think most people would agree that "NJ jurors convict Fla. man in 'fat defense' trial" would not be historically notable, but for all we know, it will be in bathroom readers for years to come. Fortunately, articles where the consensus was split are usually revisited later. Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that this story has not demonstrated long term notability. Shooting sprees at military bases happen rarely. Thousands of rapes happen every single day. ~YellowFives 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the only facts are "2009" and "Richmond High". Every thing else is a matter of opinion. I think that you, and others, have made some very good points, and people will decide with what they agree. Mandsford (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother to reply only to say "people will decide with what they agree"? It goes without saying. ~YellowFives 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I just like to bother. Putting it another way (and breaking my rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition), "people will decide what they agree with". "The fact remains that..." often means "My opinion remains that..." Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a fact that this story has not demonstrated long term notability, like it is a fact that it is not yet the year 2010. This is not in dispute. Everyone saying "it will have long term notability" or "it won't have long term notability" is speculating. I am not speculating. It might have long term notability, but we don't know yet. ~YellowFives 12:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is for article content, not talk pages. We're not supposed to add speculation to our encyclopedia articles. Our own judgement and speculation is just fine on talk pages. You're allowed to use your brain. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the very existence of this article is the article content in dispute here. The crystal ball policy speaks generally of expected future notability, and that is what I refer to. We do not know if this is going to have long term notability. We can undelete the article later if it turns out that it does. ~YellowFives 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I won't shed a tear if it is deleted. The split between NOTNEWS !votes and N/CA !votes is stark, but in reality people are talking across each other rather than engaging the issue. The NOTNEWS camp holds that this article, irrespective of verifiability, NPOV, and notability of the material, is not appropriate, and cannot be made appropriate. The N/CA folk are essentially saying that there is plenty of coverage from which an article can be written. In other words, one group asks "could we" while the other asks "should we". I come down moderately as saying "we should". There all ready is coverage that addresses the larger context of this event, see here for example, or listen to the audio coverage here (notice both of the opining professors are blue links). Since notability, in the sense of independant coverage in reliable sources cannot reasonably be challenged, I think that an article treating the event is appropriate. I will confess to reservations about BLP issues, which I encountered early on with this article, and eventually prompted me to list it on the BLP noticeboard, but I think that there are enough sets of eyes to keep things under control. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards a merge to School violence, but there doesn't appear to be a way to add it there that would improve the article while giving this horrible incident its proper degree of attention. Can anyone think of an article that would work? -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it easily passes our criteria for inclusion. BLP concerns are certainly an issue but deletion is not the answer. --John (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Richmond, California is a city of over 100,000 people. It is rated "mid-importance" in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I'm convinced of "keep" not only by the national news coverage of the incident, but that the incident seems to be an important event in the history of this major U.S. city. The fact that the article is notable enough to have been placed in Wikipedia:WikiProject California is telling. Regarding the other concerns with the article, it's certainly possible to write articles about crime that respect individuals' privacy and are NPOV. --AFriedman (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't read too much into the WikiProject California tag. The event occurred within a City in the San Francisco Bay Area, in the state of Califonia, which is why it got the California/SFBA tag. We(WP:CAL) have 21,046 articles in our scope at the moment, including several other events which may or may not warrant deletion. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was looking for an article that this one might be merged into, as Llywrch asked, but didn't find anything. But roughly a sixth of the articles in Category:Rape are mostly or largely about gang rape or some aspect of it: CATEGORY:War rape (six articles), Ashfield gang rapes, Sydney gang rapes, 2007 De Anza rape investigation, Anjana Mishra rape case, Sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (not now listed in the "War rape" category; appears to be largely gang rape, but maybe not), The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, Chiong murder case, Land, Gold and Women, Denis Mukwege, Murder of Junko Furuta, Eudy Simelane, Shopian rape and murder case, May 2009, Dans l'enfer des tournantes, Super Free, Suryanelli sex scandal, Vilina Vlas, Megan Williams case, and Subic rape case. I was surprised that there were this many articles, and this article seems to fit in with the rest of them, although at this point I'm not sure whether it should be kept. Some of the articles (the last two listed) are about allegations of gang rape that were later dropped (to allegations of a single rape). I do agree that a gang-rape allegation in a high school with students and local people who have abundant Internet access is a nightmare for BLP concerns. And we can expect that a case like this may not be resolved for more than a year. That's a lot of policing. We need to think about the harm Wikipedia can do by having articles like this. The other articles, at least, aren't now current and most don't deal with kids, and many are in poor countries where fewer people will edit. The notability guideline should be stiffened beyond WP:GNG standards for these kinds of cases. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search function for "gang rape" comes up with these other articles not in Category:Rape: Bulldogs gang rape allegation, Mount Rennie rape case, Sarathambal, Mukhtaran Bibi, Kunan Poshpora incident, Jamie Leigh Jones, Ida Carmelitta, Cheryl Araujo, The Accused (1988 film), I Spit on Your Grave, Nanking Massacre, Henrik Holappa, Bilal Skaf, Bilkis Bano, FannyAnn Eddy, FannyAnn Eddy, Margaret Cunneen, Charlie Walker Middle School, Rape and revenge films, Nazi Love Camp 27. This is a total of 44 articles entirely or largely about gang rape, or where gang rape has a lot to do with the notability of the subject. Quite a few are fiction and there are a few video games. Several manga comics and soap operas that have gang rape in a significant episode or plot section aren't included. Gang rape (now a redirect) certainly seems like a subject worth a Wikipedia article (there are many serious subjects Wikipedia doesn't have articles on, still). If it existed, it might be the right article to merge this one into. Would the article on this incident give readers some insight into the subject of gang rape as an encyclopedia article should be expected to? JohnWBarber (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely violates WP:NOTNEWS. --Manway (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those arguing that this violates WP:NOTNEWS need to re-read the policy is question. The policy does not forbid articles for notable current events, it just emphasizes that not everything that gets reported automatically warrants an article. As such, we have to consider this not in the context of WP:NOT but WP:N and specifically Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which clearly says that a criminal act is notable if it "receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope". The N/CA guideline specifically was created as a result of the arguments that this debate reflects, i.e. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E vs. coverage satisfying WP:GNG. But if the guideline reflects consensus on how to deal with exactly this kind of article, then this means it's also the most (or even only) relevant guideline to apply here. N/CA requires "multiple, independent sources" that discuss the subject in question (stricter than WP:N) but we have them. We even have an event here that, tragic as it is, has sparked massive discussions on different subjects, like people not helping a crime victim and peer pressure leading to horrible crimes. It meets thus the relevant guideline for inclusion and WP:BLP problems can be addressed by editing. Regards So Why 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that some editors have stated an intention to keep adding the names of those involved, even though several keep votes here have been predicated on the names staying out. If the article is not deleted, people who have participated in this discussion are the first who should stay involved with the article to address BLP issues. ~YellowFives 12:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP doesn't specifically prohibit republishing the names of people accused of a crime. I am also leery of including such information in articles, but some editors are waving BLP around as though it prohibits something it really doesn't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is there to give living people a higher degree of protection, this article was an awful mess to begin with and names of anyone and anyone were included, someone was named who was arrested and released without charge, this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid magazine, we can happily afford to give a little time to see who is actually charged and write a decent article when details stabilize, this is the kind of BLP problem that arises when we write a story that is actually day by day news and day by day changing. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether to include those names or not is not relevant to the question whether the article should be kept. I would suggest you take that discussion to the talk page of the article or the BLP noticeboard instead. Regards So Why 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment regarding the names is in relation to support for delete, and as such belongs here. This adding and removing of names is reflective of the problems and affect on living people that arise when you create an article that is a news report. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's irrelevant for this decision. Whether the article should include the names or not is only relevant to the article's content, not to the article's existence. The names are not essential for the article's existence and as such the discussion about their inclusion should be held at the appropriate places instead. If you want to successfully argue in favor of deletion then you have to make your argument about the article itself, not parts of it that can be removed without problems (if needed). Else the correct solution per WP:ATD is to edit the article (if needed) to comply with policy rather than to delete it. Regards So Why 16:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is were we will have to disagree then, the names have been in and out already more than once, this is due to the simple fact that it is a current hot developing news topic, and as this is an encyclopaedia and not a chip wrapper, articles that are like this as I have seen here at wiki are very emotive, usually a huge worthless mess, and after all that hurrah has died down..they finally get totally rewritten to a decent standard. I just don't think there is a encyclopaedic benefit to all that news drama style, hot off the press, adding of every new googled citation reporting. Two such recent drama fests...the beer summit, the arrest of the professor (whatshisname) for breaking into his own house and the polanski arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that you have described are reasons for editorial control (possibly semi-protection) but not for deletion of the article. Neither the inclusion of those names nor constant changes in content is a reason for deletion if the article itself is encyclopedic. Regards So Why 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, imo, the article at this time has no chance of being encyclopaedic, with or without control whilst it is a hot off the press, daily changing news report. Added to my thought regarding this is also that whilst one set of editors fights to add this or that newly googled citation and the other side struggles to add their position and the talk page is littered with BLP violations, this is the time of high traffic, this is what the public get to see. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy is correct, BLP is not a valid reason to delete this article. First, because there are no BLP violations in the article and second, because article can simply be edited should any BLP violations arise. The idea of "delete now, recreate after the trial" is bizarre and is not described in any wiki policy I've seen. Richmondian (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bizarre at all, you have your opinion as to interpretation of policy guidelines and I have mine. No one is claiming BLP protection is a valid reason for deletion. My feelings as I have clearly commented is that the article is a news story, and as such is not encyclopeadic and has no chance of being such whilst the daily changes and retractions added by rampant googling of news sources, these alterations and hot off the press tabloidese citations do naturally create BLP issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have enough coverage of this event to justify an article. I see AFD's start for many of these kinds of events. while its awkward in the first few days or hours after an event to determine if its notable, and i fully understand the desire to stop articles from growing that are on nonnotable news events, i think its clear this was potentially notable from the beginning, considering all the different subjects touched on by the events. Ooff2riorob, are you suggesting that this story has NO chance of being encyclopedic? if so, you are showing an untoward bias. even if consensus is that at this time its not notable, it could easily become notable at any time between now and the conclusion of any trial, or even afterward. and you seem to be saying that "the article is a news story, and as such is not encyclopedic". that sentence doesnt make any sense, unless you mean the article itself is written exactly like a news story. the quote seems to imply that no news story is ever encyclopedic, which you cant possibly mean. could you clarify?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have commented enough but just for you and then I will remove this from my watchlist, . to me, an article needs a degree of stability to be encyclopaedic, that is one of the conditions of a wp good article, stability, this article will one day be ok, I am not disputing the general notability of the story but it is at present a news report and changing daily creating instability and BLP issues as the story changes. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In my personal judgment the story does not rise to encyclopedic notability until there is a jury verdict. In a case like this, I feel that a jury verdict is the only evidence I have to establish truth, and I cannot have verifiablity until I have truth. I hope this makes sense. Since jury verdicts are always a matter of public record (though details of a trial may be redacted), I can be patient enough with an encyclopedia to wait for the appropriate (or even inappropriate) verdict(s) to come back, and at that time cite them in an article which may exist then. Until then, I feel strongly that the article should be deleted. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS. FWIW, I've already been called upon to deal with edits which needed oversight on that article. I also have concerns that such an article 1) is a BLP nightmare, at least prior to verdict and 2) it could easily be used in evidence that the jury was prejudiced and that due to the coverage, etc, that the defendants could not receive a fair trial, etc. Not the first time this kind of thing has happened - Alison ^❤ 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out, the BLP "nightmare" concerns are very weak since all names of those charged are published in several other places. Pre-emptively deleting articles because of possible, future, policy violations is just not something wikipedia does, AFAIK.

The "no fair trial" claim is just plain weird. If I'm on a jury and Joe Lee is before me, and I go home and read on wikipedia that Joe Lee has been charged with a crime, well, that's hardly biasing since he's sitting right there in front of me in court and a prosecutor has given me many more details than are in our wikipedia:reliable sources. There's also ample precedent for articles like this, e.g. the Fort Hood shooting, which includes name of suspect. Richmondian (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, Richmondian. The BLP nightmare that Alison had to oversight was the name of the girl who was raped. This article is going to continually become a violation of her privacy, and we are required to do whatever it takes to protect her privacy, up to and including deletion of an article that will constantly be a violation. The BLP issues here are very different from Fort Hood, and this is yet another reason why the article must be deleted. ~YellowFives 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we are required to do whatever it takes to protect her privacy"? Really? What policy does it say that in? BLP is about being careful to not post anything false about living individuals. It has nothing to do with privacy. We post victims' names all the time. We post things that people might not want stated publicly all the time. If it's true and verifiable, it doesn't violate BLP. A crime occurred here and the name of the victim is not in dispute, only whether or not the alleged perpetrators actually did it. I don't know why the name of the victim has been left out of this particular article; I see no grounds to do that, let alone delete the article for fear that people would continue to include it. Equazcion (talk) 19:55, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The name of the victim has not been published in the press. In any case the "BLP nightmare" has not materialized. It isn't keeping me up at night anyway, if something that violates BLP goes in, we simply delete it. Richmondian (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bothering you because you're not one of the admins who has to watch and perform the oversight, and it wouldn't bother you anyway, as you're happy to add citations blaming the victim for her own rape. ~YellowFives 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fives, if you're referring to the quote I think you are, you're probably the only one who came away with that impression. I thought it was implying what an awful place this must be if students are actually blaming the victim. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equazcion, I'm looking at BLP right now and it very clearly does require us to take care for the victim's privacy. Emphasis mine: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

So yes, our primary concern is the victim's privacy. Something can be both true and verifiable and still violate BLP, especially so when "they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." Read the policy instead of assuming what it says, please. Your suggestion that we should include the victim's name is both disgusting and outrageous, and the fact that any editors believe as you do is yet another reason why the article must be deleted. ~YellowFives 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with professional standards of journalism, responsible media sources generally do not publish the names of victims of sexual assaults (except when they voluntarily come forward, or in unusual circumstances), and, per WP:BLP, neither should we. In no case should we ever publish the name of the victim of a sexual assault when not released by a respected journalist, but merely obtained from a primary source such as court documents. The solution to users' insistence on editing in violation of WP:BLP, however, is to warn and block them, and to protect the article if necessary. Deletion of the article is neither necessary nor sufficient in this instance to prevent the on-wiki disclosure of the victim's name, since it could always be added to Richmond, California, or another non-deletable article. More generally, permitting users to destroy notable articles through editing them in violation of WP:BLP or other core policies sets a rather bad precedent. Andrea105 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note as a followup to my earlier comment that the event has continued to receive very substantial coverage across the nation. There will also be a trial related to the events. This was a disturbing event and it's not a pleasant subject, but it's clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A trial is pretty standard; it is a criminal case after all. Neither a trial nor current coverage demonstrates long term notability though. ~YellowFives 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tragic and ugly incident with almost no factual content. The article reads like a newspaper report and is full of supposition: alleged, believed, reportedly proliferate without much, if any, attribution as to whom, exactly, is doing the alleging, believing and reporting. (The remark about people at the school who "believe" the minor victim is herself responsible for the events certainly ought to be stricken on the grounds that there will be neanderthals everywhere who will hold idiotic opinions; their ignornace should not be immortalised in an encyclopedia.) Everyone involved appears to be a minor; that alone could be grounds for awaiting verifiable facts despite media feeding frenzies over anything prurient. "Notable", even if true beyond the needs of a voracious 24-hour-news station hunger, is not sufficient when minors are the BLP-related subjects. As an aside, Richmondian, who suggests in his/her defense of the article above that he/she has insider information through confessions of a prosecutor, appears also to have a conflict. He/she began his/her Wikipedia career on November 4 with this article and has been entirely single-minded about it since then, displaying all the attributes of a WP:SPA with a mission. Bielle (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Bielle. The lack of information is well worth considering as a reason to delete. We need enough verifiable information from reliable sources to even write an article. What we have is a stub that will remain a stub and a bunch of opinion pieces. ~YellowFives 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle's arguments don't hold water. There's plenty of factual content as well as opinion that was published in the newspapers. And any qualifiers such as "alleged", "believed" and so forth are coming from the press or the agencies involved because in the real world, news outlets have to be careful with biographies too. Any lack of attribution of who is doing the alleging and believing can be fixed with more precise citations. And if the media reported that a certain proportion of the high school holds unfortunate opinions about the matter, then we may cover that. I don't know what Bielle is referring to when suggesting that Richmondian has inside information, but he/she would do well to read the no personal attacks policy before calling someone an SPA. There's nothing wrong with someone beginning as a Wikipedia editor when something major hits close to home, and there's nothing wrong with someone with personal knowledge being an editor so long as they only contribute material that has been previously published. Wikipedia editing isn't a double-blind process. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "inside information" suggestion came from a statement made above by Richmondian: "and a prosecutor has given me many more details than are in our wikipedia:reliable sources." I did not say he was using such information, merely that he appeared to have unusual access which might mean a conflict of interest. There is no personal attack in noting that Richmondian is "displaying all the attributes of a WP:SPA with a mission". It is just a fact. This is a tragic event turned into a circus; an encyclopedia should not be one of the acts. Bielle (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that came across wrong, that was a hypothetical situation, I'm trying to determine how putting defendants name in an article would taint a jury, which was an earlier persons claim. I do not know any prosecutor or law enforcement officer working on the case, or know the victim or any of the accused or their families or even anyone associated with Richmond High.

If I were on a jury where hypothetical defendant Joe was before me, and I went home and googled Joe's name and found this article, I don't see how it would bias me, because, being on that hypothetical jury, I would already know Joe's name, and would have had far more information presented to me by the hypothetical prosecutor than is in the article. Richmondian (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Richmondian, but I have to disagree with you on a point of fact. If, as a jury member in a trial you went home and googled the hypothetical "Joe", you'd probably end up with something like the case being thrown out. Let me give you an example:

Sixth, do not do any research or make any investigation on your own about any matter involved in this case. By way of examples, that means you must not read from a dictionary or a text book or an encyclopedia or talk with a person you consider knowledgeable or go to the Internet for information about some issue in this case. In fairness, learn about this case from the evidence you receive here at the trial and apply it to the law as I give it to you.

This example of what I mean comes from Manual Of Model Criminal Jury Instructions, § 1.08, a court district in your own state. (Note, I was easily able to find the quote using a little reference called WP.) I don't mean to "lawyer" on you, because I am not one. But my lay understanding of the law is that the above quote is highly typical of instructions given to juries in criminal cases. Going home and googling "Joe", I believe, would get me in a lot of trouble with a judge were I a juror.

To get back to the topic of the AfD, there are many things about an "accusation" that don't rise to a "conviction", that I find personally disturbing within the scope of an "encyclopedia article" as opposed to a "news article". A misunderstanding, such as yours, as to how the information may or may not be used is fundamental to my own "delete" vote in this AfD. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in a nutshell, you're saying that in this case having the defendant's names in an article wouldn't taint a jury, which was my claim. i guess we agree on that so....huh? Richmondian (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- major news with extensive coverage of national scope -- clearly not the sort of "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Statements that certain (unnamed) individuals have been arrested for the crime do not violate WP:BLP -- such excessive concern for the interests of the alleged rapists is highly misguided. If oversightable edits, such as the name of the victim, become a problem, the article can be protected; deletion is neither necessary nor sufficient for preventing such edits, since they could always be made to an article that won't be deleted, such as Richmond, California. Editing of the article by a disruptive SPA, if established, can and should be remedied by blocking. Andrea105 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it, but I think we should keep it for the time being. HOWEVER!, Everyone who voted keep, should add this to their watchlist and be extra vigilant on the blp question, and Richmondian should be very very careful about it, lest editing restrictions end up being applied. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrea and Georgewilliam herbert.--SKATER ^Speak. 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP, and a little common decency. Any salacious stories like this will have a spurt of news coverage initially. Sorry to say, despite some's remarks above, this is not that unusual. The only thing unusual about it is that the speed of information available (right or wrong) thanks to the internet and cell phones. Its extremely common for mob mentality to take over, even in raping some poor girl. Its a well documented phenomenon. At best, a very brief, nameless mention in the appropriate article about that phenomenon might be appropriate, but otherwise, leave it for Wikinews. While this AfD is on-going, I hope admins will continue to be vigilant in oversighting the downright despicable attempts to post the victim's name.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP, two weeks later and nobody is talking about this. As for this being an such an unusually violent or otherwise unique event, you're just fooling yourselves. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the NY times online yesterday [29] Richmondian (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Richmondian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. We aren't a news blotter, but precedent has been set, and there's plenty of precedent for this type of article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's pretty clear that the event raises many issues in a variety of subject areas, and is of lasting (so far) notability. The arguments against seem to be rote recitals of NOT#NEWS and some other things, without looking at the specific issues here. With many thousands of major news articles this clearly passes the general notability guidelines so the only question is whether it's an ephemeral news event. Even the quickest perusal of the sources shows that it is not. It is not yet another rape, but one that has raised a lot of issues about school security, bystanders, good samaritan issues, and so on, that reach back before the event and after as well. An encyclopedic treatment of school rape incidents, or gang rape, in America, naturally includes this as one of the various cases. To be silent on this one would be an omission and would lead the reader to an incomplete understanding. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very notable current event which continues to receive media coverage. We can renominate for deletion in a few months if it fades from notability by then. Edrigu (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about an important current event that already seems as if it might be catalyst for social change. It involves issues of violence against women, sexualization of children, desensitization to violence, religion, and racial issues. In a vacuum this would not be grounds for an article, but the amount of publicity it has generated and the way it has started to mobilize the Richmond community is truly noteworthy. Maybe in a year if it proves not to have staying power it should be deleted, but to be safe it should be left up as a resource to anyone who wants to learn the general facts of the case.Ericsean (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" . . . a catalyst for social change"? If it does become that in the future, then that is the time to have an article about it, in context, and not now. Bielle (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not disagree more. It is of social consequence NOW. If it turns out to be of no social consequence, then delete it. However as Gamaliel said, there is plenty of precedent of articles like this. I do not see people trying to delete the others. Why this one. BTW, I have a full argument on the main talk page if you want to respond to that too. Ericsean (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As other have said, this is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Sadly, I do not see the lasting significance or anything that lift this above other violent crimes. Kevin (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Child.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and take out and shoot the male editors who just dismiss this as a "news event". Rebecca (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh yes, that's a very constructive comment... – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also don't support Rebecca's comment, she clearly has a COI. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain my reasoning, Rebecca. It is unacceptable when rapes are ignored and not taken seriously. But I do not see how a Wikipedia article which is at times full of undue weight to red herrings, and which has been used to leak the victim's name, is more informative to the public than those news articles written by professional journalists. My primary concern is that having an encyclopedia article that anyone can edit will make the victim's life worse rather than better—I'm shocked by those who claim our BLP policy does not mean we should consider her privacy and quality of life, when it so plainly does—and if this cost to her comes at little or no gain to the reader who can just as easily read the news, then the balance of interests is in favor of deletion. ~YellowFives 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme explain about the red herring of the victim's name being "leaked". SOME name was inserted, uncited, into the article. I do not know if it was the victim's name. Multiple people jumped on it and the name was removed almost within a minute, and wiped from the records:

23:33, 7 November 2009 Diegusjaimes (talk | contribs) (13,869 bytes) (Reverted to revision 324545519 by Dragons flight. (TW))
~~23:32, 7 November 2009 Regisfugit (talk | contribs)~~

Richmondian (talk)

Yellowfives, While I agree with much of what you said about the victim, deleting an article because 'anyone can edit it' is, in my opinion, against the spirit of Wikipedia. If someone is post problematic information, then it should be reported to a administrator who can lock or partially lock the article after the information is removed. To take your logic to the extreme would render completely undermine the purpose of this wiki. For instance, if the article were collapsed into the entry for Richmond High School, anyone could put the victim's name on that page. Thus, that page would have to be removed as well. I've been wondering why people are so dead set against this article being on Wikipedia. I have gotten some reasonable answers, but with all due respect your rational is not one of them. Sincerely, Ericsean (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and Ericsean says it better than I could. I share Y-5's concern that information about the victim might be posted on the article, but that could happen in any article where this is described. This article definitely needs to be write-protected, if it isn't already, so that only established users can work on it. Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of Wikipedia is not to have an article on every damn incident that we possibly can. It is to build an encyclopedia. I ask again, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? Nothing. Now, the same may be said for many other articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles don't also have this inherent BLP issue, so the presumptive default for those other articles may be to keep them. What is the merit to an encyclopedia of immortalizing this girl's victimization? Yes, her name may be leaked again on another article, but this article still has no affirmative reason for existing and acts like a big blinking neon sign that says "LEAK HER NAME HERE" in a way that other articles don't. ~YellowFives 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One minute YellowFives. The name was there for one minute before being removed. Have a little faith in wikipedia's immune system? Richmondian (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

43 minutes, you mean. From 23:20, 7 November 2009 until oversight at 00:03, 8 November 2009. ~YellowFives 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only edits with the victim's name were the 23:30 and 23:32 edits and that was gone from the live article by 23:33. Oversight removed it from the history about 30 minutes later but there were only about two minutes when the name could have been seen by a casual visitor. The earlier edits that were also oversighted involved names of the accused. Arguably that was unnecessary since the accused names have been in the papers, but Alison chose to remove both. Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33 minutes. Thank you for the correction. ~YellowFives 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowfives, First, I do not like the tone you are striking. I see you are obviously angry and emotionally invested in the story and or subject. Trust me, many of the rest of us are. Many of us know women and/or men who have been victims of rape. Many of us know people's lives that have been destroyed. However, Wikipedia is not a center for a activism, be it by creating or deleting pages. So, do not take the tone you are taking with me or anyone else who believes that this already is a noteworthy story.

I have yet to see anyone tell me where an inherent BLP violation is in this article. No names are mentioned at this point. At times they have been, but were promptly removed. This includes the name of person who called 911, who gave a video interview to CNN and has stated that she wanted to go public. If you want to see BLP violations, I suggest you look at the edit log for the Mark Levin page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin). Some of the information on there was considered by many to be very unfair and even harmful to Mr. Levin. However, after weeks of editing and discussion, consensus was reached and BLP issues were confronted. I am not advocating leaving information about names up there for that long, but they were taken care of very quickly.

I would also like you to address the comment I made below about how this situation is leading to an unprecedented expansion of mandatory reporting laws. Simply because the law will be proposed, makes this wikipedia worthy. Ericsean (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowfives, though were are all armatures at this, we should behave professionally. Please assume we are operating in good faith, as we will do for you.

Ericsean, first, I do not like the condescending tone you are striking. I see you are obviously invested in poisoning the well by implying some sort of irrationality on my part. I ask that you cease commenting about me and start talking about the content. I am interested in our approach to the WP:BLP policy here, which I quote: "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. ... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I ask yet again, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? Nothing. No one has answered this. We can leave this to professional journalists instead of immortalizing her victimization here in an encyclopedia article that will be freely editable for all time.

This situation is not leading to an unprecedented expansion of mandatory reporting laws. It is a proposed bill, and we do not know what will come of it. There are tens of thousands of proposed bills every year. They are not inherently notable. ~YellowFives 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fives, I would respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what other people have said. People have answered your question, but it is not the answer you want, so you are not listening. Several people have already said that just because something is on Google News does not mean that it cannot be on here as well. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

As to your comment that the article is not allowed because it further prolongs the victimization, your standard would prevent almost all crimes from not being reported. I refer you to the page for Mumia abu Jamal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu_Jamal) and Daniel Faulkner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Faulkner). Faulkner's widow is on record as saying that every time Abu Jamal files and appeal it reopens the wounds of her late husband's murder, especially when unsubstantiated claims are made against him. By your overly conservative standard, at least the latter page should be deleted to prevent further victimization to the late officer's wife. Ericsean (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I would respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what other people have said. People have answered your question, but it is not the answer you want, so you are not listening. Several people have already said that just because something is on Google News does not mean that it cannot be on here as well."

This is untrue. No one has answered the question. If you believe they have, then I'm sure you can provide diffs of the answer. I did not say that simply because something is in the news that it shouldn't be here. I did not say they were mutually exclusive. What I said was: "I ask again, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? Nothing. Now, the same may be said for many other articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles don't also have this inherent BLP issue, so the presumptive default for those other articles may be to keep them. What is the merit to an encyclopedia of immortalizing this girl's victimization?" When there is no additional merit to having an encyclopedia article in addition to the news, and there is the issue of prolonging the victimization, then it's a reasonable case that we should not have the article. My words about this are limited to this article. We draw different conclusions about different articles, and that's okay. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about Daniel Faulkner. Actually I don't see anything exceptionally meritable about that article either, but we take these issues one at a time and what matters here may not matter there. Here we are talking about the victimization of an underage girl. ~YellowFives 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow, it is my belief that this is already a significant event for the reasons that I have stated below. So in my opinion if one of the most used websites in the world has an article giving the bare facts of the case, it is appropriate. Having all of the information together is, in my opinion, encyclopedic. In terms of victimization, how is simply reporting the facts prolonging the victimization from your perspective. Ericsean (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is plainly not an answer to my questions, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? What is the merit to an encyclopedia of immortalizing this girl's victimization? Using this girl's rape as a political football, as a "catalyst for social change" or to advance discussion of Yee's bill, is taking advantage of her. If Yee's bill becomes separately notable in its own right, then by all means make an article for it, but don't use this article as a coatrack or a soapbox or a catalyst for social change. It's just a rape, no less and no more. It isn't social commentary on religion and race relations. Let's not make it into everything we want it to be. ~YellowFives 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment California State Senator Leland Yee said November 8 he is proposing a change to state law in the wake of this crime to require reporting of such a crime against a minor. Present law requires reporting if the victim is 13 or under. He will introduce the bill in the next state legislative session in January. This is an indicator of a crime having a larger effect than one splash of news coverage. Edison (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, this is an excellent point. In effect, his bill would expand who was a mandatory reporter to an unprecedented level. I think that is notable in and of itself. Ericsean (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per Edison's comment above, I feel that any discussion of whether this crime has long lasting effects is now mute. The proposed bill by Sen. Yee would in affect make every person a mandatory reporter of a rape of a minor. This is an unprecedented expansion of laws that originally applied to only professionals such as teachers, social workers, and doctors. Whether or not the law passes, this crosses a new line in how society is expected to react to sexual abuse of a minor. In addition, there are very few crimes that someone MUST report if they are a witness. This expansion of mandatory reporting is definitely a sign of social developments coming from this story. Ericsean (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed bill." Nothing more to say about that. It's not as though nothing like this has ever been proposed before. Bills are proposed all the time. They aren't inherently notable. ~YellowFives 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow, the ERA did not pass but the fact that it was proposed is still worth mentioning. If a law this far reaching has been proposed, tell me. Where and when? What was the bill number? I can't find any. Ericsean (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False analogies do not help your argument, Ericsean. If Senator Yee's current interest turns into a proposed amendment to the US consitution with the same weight of social and historical significance as had the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, I give you my solemn pledge I will not only vote "Keep", but I will help write the article. Currently, it's no more than a politician talking to the media. Bielle (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle, I suppose it is a streatch of an annology, though definately not a straw man, but you ignore the other part of my request. Show me where something this drastic has been proposed. Just in the fact that it is so far reaching makes it noteworthy. Ericsean (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I wasn't clear. I had no intention of ignoring any part of your comparison. The very definition, in my view, of "not noteworthy" is "no more than a politician talking to the media". Bielle (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bielle, here's what he said: you ignore the other part of my request. Show me where something this drastic has been proposed.

To which you said I had no intention of ignoring any part of your comparison.

But then you ignore it again, where are these many laws are proposed in response to non-notable criminal acts? Richmondian (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies again. That part was purely rhetorical, I thought. What else was anyone to make of "Show me where something this drastic has been proposed?" Every law that has ever passed has been first "proposed" and I am sure those of you living in the U.S. can name a law or two that has had drastic consequences. (The initial claim was that "Bills are proposed all the time", which I thought was also rhetorical.) Now Richmondian appears to have changed the question and specified laws proposed in respect of non-notable criminal acts. I don't have a clue. If a proposal becomes law, then, by definition I would think the related criminal act becomes notable and extends beyond the tragedy of the event itself. I think that is what I have been supporting: if Yee's proposal were to go beyond being "a politician talking to the media" and to emerge in the appropriate legislature as a draft bill, it may then be notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bielle (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can some levelheaded administrator end this discussion? Consensus is looking very unlikely and it is just an energy sap now. Richmondian (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any reason why that can't wait until the full seven days are up? This article was first brought to AfD on Nov. 5 and it's only Nov. 10... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is forcing you to participate, Richmondian. ~YellowFives 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Yellow, no one is forcing Richmondian to participate, but he has been participating in good faith--just like you have been. So please don't try to knock his participation. Though you do not mean it to be so, some could interpret it as bullying him. Ericsean (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, only a day and a half left. The last 30 comments (including this one) have simply been one person responding to another. I think I saw some keeps and deletes yesterday, but today's been all icing, no cake. Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, Mandsford!: buttercream, with roses, :-) Bielle (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significant and lasting reliable source coverage, thus far, makes it appear as though this article survives wp:notnews. We can review this in the future should hindsight become clearer. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete as WP:NOT#NEWS. Send it to Wikinews and if anything notable emerges from this (a la Kitty Genovese), an article can be written then. By way of substantiating my position, and as a suggestion to the closer to at least consider the issue more generally, a quick note about the disagreement between the two camps: it seems to me this is a classic example of the systematic, US-slanted bias in en.wiki. This regional issue is trumpeted as Most Important Event Ever by (willing to bet almost exclusively) US editors watching US news caught up in classic intense-then-forgotten US media cycle. They are being sucked into the magnifying effect of the style of US news coverage (not to single out the US b/c other countries are just as bad, but I note that we don't get these kind of knee-jerk, NotNews-violating "articles" about big events in Bulgaria, which I would also vote to delete.) This article from Der Spiegel provides something of the perspective we should maintain with respect to the events that get caught up in the news cycle. Eusebeus (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting opinion Eusebeus. I'm glad to hear you are in favor of removing similar pages. Shall I give you a list of pages and sections of which you should get rid?Ericsean (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebus, I'm sorry for the sarcasm. I am afraid I let my frustration with the this discussion get the better of me. Ericsean (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just counted over 900 articles from major media organizations about this event. The sheer weight of such massive media coverage is obviously enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The biggest outlets in the US have given it ongoing coveage (eg NY Times, CBS Evening News etc). That shows its not just a local issue. Even SKY News in Britain covers it. People are kidding themselves if they think this is a non-notable school prank that just happened to make the news that night 'cause there was nothing else happening.--Lester 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That small piece on sky which is actually an American news service that was not followed up or reported widely or even at all in the uk does not show global notability, this is actually a local issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global coverage. Actually, Sky News is in the UK: "11:43am UK, Friday October 30, 2009". Also reported in The Guardian,[30] Daily Telegraph,[31], Edinburgh Evening News,[32] The Voice,[33] Daily Mail,[34]. Also in other countries, e.g. France Soir,[35] Metro Canada several times,[36] Brisbane Times,[37] WA Today twice,[38] BBC Brasil,[39] Terra several times,[40] Il Messagero,[41] Nettavisen,[42] Visão,[43] Sol,[44] Blick,[45] Wirtualna Polska,[46] China Daily,[47] Cooperativa[48]. There's more too. Fences&Windows 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, you will be updating the article on British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, I take it? It's a fascinating assertion that BSkyB is American. I've been mislead for a lot of years. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lester and Richmondian. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for deletion. It is a factual account of an event in the news with probable long-term implications. AngelSG (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — AngelSG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Vs Poet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artticle does not assert a claim to notability. They have not had any songs that have made the charts, any records on a major label, any coverage by non-trivial sources, nor any members of the band in other notable bands. The article has previously been deleted due to a lack of credible information from reliable sources and currently stands almost completely on the band's own website. Mrathel (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is a review of an album. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The group is signed to a notable indie label but have only released a non-charting EP, and simply being signed to that label does not cause the band to pass WP:MUSIC alone. I might change my vote if I see any reliable sources to the band's notability, but I haven't found any whatsoever. Doc Strange (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sourcing is lacking and the vast majority of the keep arguments are not citing policy while the delete side certainly does. And for the record IMDB is NOT and never will be a reliable source as they have next to no content control Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Ayre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable actor. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. Prod removed by IP with no edit summary or reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major roles in Space Cases, The New Ghostwriter Mysteries, Bang Bang You're Dead (film), Voyage of the Unicorn, Bye Bye Birdie (film), and an InuYasha the Movie: Fire on the Mystic Island. Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She did not have a major role in an InuYasha movie - she isn't Japanese nor was the role "major". Doing a dub of it later doesn't make it any bigger. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the rest that I listed? Joe Chill (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First series, one season and cancelled. Second is barely verifiable, but seems to be the same sort of thing. Third, a film where her role was so minor it was not even worth noting in the plot. Voyage of the Unicorn, unnotable television film. And the final, she is not even mentioned in the entire article. That certainly isn't any kind of major or minor role. Ent does not say "a bunch of minor roles in unnotable works" but "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having one season doesn't mean automatic notability. Most shows are notable. So we still have Space Cases, Bang Bang, You're Dead, Bye Bye Birdie, and 18 episodes in Nothing Too Good for a Cowboy. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of those are notable, as already noted. They didn't last one season, they were canceled early, and neither o fthe two dead series have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The only reason they have articles is a misguided idea that if they aired at all, it makes them notable enough even if they will never be more than stubs and OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang, You're Dead: Winner of multiple awards. I really doubt that a Snick series, even if it was canceled early, is non-notable. The article doesn't say anything about early cancellation. Bye Bye Birdie: Multiple award winner including nominated for two Oscars. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as already noted, she did not have SIGNIFICANT roles in either of those. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. None of the articles list minor roles. Joe Chill (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces Cases: Major. I'll check the rest. Joe Chill (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang You're Dead: Major. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem determined to mix major roles in unnotable series with insignificant roles in notable works to try to some how many significant roles in notable works, this discuss is pretty pointless and I'm not going to just keep repeating myself. Her roles were minor in the notable works, as already noted, and the other works are not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the cast list, you will see that they are major roles. Prove that Space Cases and Bang Bang, You're Dead isn't major. Prove that the Inuyasha movie is a minor role. Prove that the cast list includes minor roles. What don't you understand about award winners and a Nickelodeon show? If you can't prove that stuff, why repeat? It is common knowledge that usually only major roles are listed in Wikipedia articles. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is on those claiming HE is notable (at least, per the article...so guess that shows just how much coverage Ayre has really gotten and how much attention is really even being paid by those defending him as notable) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a significant amount of information regarding the actor's film history. The article was rather lacking, but there are references to the actor on reliable sources in the entertainment industry. Neuromancer (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting out of IMDB is neither a reliable source nor actual proof that the roles were significant and the works major. Nor is the TV.com link you added a reliable source either. Further, this is a living person, so WP:BLP does apply here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence they pass any relevant notability criteria. Verbal chat 09:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice to recreation. There are currently no reliable sources that talk about this actor qua actor. The number of productions of which he's been a part is certainly evidence that there ought to be such sources out there, but none have yet come to light. Powers ^T 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, Collectonian, who is the person presenting the "facts" as to why the article should be deleted doesn't even seem to know that Kristian is a he, not a she. (And since Collectonian made a point of establishing her own gender at the top of her own entry, that's a rather shocking lapse in fact-checking). Second, Space Cases ran two seasons, not one. It was nominated for a Cable Ace award. It was created by Bill Mumy and by me, Peter David. The cast included Walter Jones of "Power Rangers" fame and Jewel Staite, playing an engineering genius on a space ship ten years before Joss Whedon cast her in the same type of role in "Firefly." It guest starred such SF icons as Mark Hamill and George Takei. We hired Kristian because he blew us all away in his audition. His role in "Space Cases" was co-starring (he was a lead along with Walter and Jewel) and his character, "Radu," was one of the most popular in the series. And don't be dismissive of his role in "Bye Bye Birdie"--he was Harvey Johnson, the desperate teenaged boy who can't get a date with anyone (he can be heard repeatedly in the song "The Telephone Hour" with his voice cracking, calling around and trying to find any girl in town who will go out with him. Anyone familiar with the show will remember him.) I also saw him perform on Broadway just last year. Being a Broadway actor no longer cuts it on Wikipedia? Come on. He is a superb young actor, has a more impressive resume than any number of actors whose entries are unchallenged, and has, in my opinion, a very promising future. If the editors wish to speak to me about it further, they are welcome to email me at [email protected]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padguy (talk • contribs) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC) — Padguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Mr. David: We just need some reliable sources that talk about Kristian's life and career. That's the only way we can be sure to have accurate information. Powers ^T 14:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, according to the hotlink you put up, reliable sources are "the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Well, in this case, the source is a multiple award winning author who cast Kristian in "Space Cases" and wrote most of the words that he spoke in that role, and has been following his career for well over a decade. I'm one of the guys from whom the reliable sources get their information. I'm not his mom or a fanboy offering opinion as fact. I am not a Wikipedian. I'm who Wikipedians write about. That may sound self-aggrandizing, but it's not meant to be. It's simply the truth. And I'm telling you as an authoritative source that Kristian is a fine young actor with an impressive resume who has every right to be properly represented on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padguy (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, perhaps I should have said "reliable published sources". =) We can't put up information and when someone asks where we got it, say "well some guy claiming to be Peter David said so right here on our internal discussion forums". I mean, we could, but it's not exactly up to academic standards. If you could point us to a published account where you told a journalist "I've been following Kristian's career for over a decade and he's a fine young actor," then that we can use. Powers ^T 15:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've never been interviewed specifically about Kristian, so it's never come up. I've discussed "Space Cases" in various articles and interviews throughout the years, but I'm not prepared to start digging them up because all I'd be doing is looking for verification of stuff I'm saying to you right now, which seems kind of a waste of time to me. I'm certainly not "some guy claiming to be Peter David." That's why I invited the editors to contact me on my well-publicized email account, just to verify it. Academic standards, I certainly think, allow for direct interviews with sources, which is what this exchange effectively is. (Although if you wish, you can check out this blog entry from two years ago in which I talk about how great a job Kristian did in "The Number 14" on Broadway: http://www.peterdavid.net/archives/005304.html). If it will keep peace in the family, I'm perfectly happy to go straight to my website, throw up a "Calling all Space Cases fans" thread, and urge them flood their various websites with first person commentary on what a good actor they believe Kristian Ayre to be. Of course, I'll also have to explain why I'm doing that, in which case it will doubtless result in lots of people making extremely snide comments about Wikipedia, which none of us needs or wants.Padguy (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padguy (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not conduct original research, which would include doing an interview with anyone via email or anyone else. You yourself talking about him on your personal blog does not give him notability, nor would your calling "fans" to promote him. He must be discussed in reliable, THIRD-PARTY sources - newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Not just fans and friends and those who have worked with him trying to give him notability by talking about him. We also have very strict policies about handling articles on living people, both for Wikipedia's protection and their own. Its the same policy that would keep someone from going to Peter David (AGF that you are him) and writing a bunch of vitrol about you and sourcing it to their blog. You may always wish to refactor the last bit of your reply, as some could consider it a threat. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't intended to be a threat, but simply an endeavor to try and find a "third party"way to show that Kristian is highly regarded and admired by a considerable number of fans, and explaining why I was reluctant to pursue that path since I didn't want Wikipedia to get blowback from fans of his. The THIRD-PARTY sources tests fall apart when you consider that most of those sources would be interviews with me. It is simply ridiculous to contend that my comments only count if you read them somewhere else. And since we're discussing refactoring, perhaps you would be so kind as to rewrite your previous comments so that your errors over Kristian's gender and the fact that "Space Cases" ran two seasons, not one, were rectified.Padguy (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the double requirement - "reliable, third-party", not just third party. Blog comments and forum postings are not reliable sources. His being regarded or admired by fans is not evidence of notability. Your comments on your blog is also not a reliable, third-party source showing notability, it only would show that there was off-line actions being taken to try to influence this AfD (which is also against Wikpiedia policy and would hurt the AfD and article more than anything). Again, if he is notable, point to actual, reliable, third-party sources: news reports about him, magazine articles about him, etc and not blog postings and self-published commentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSo let me see if I understand this: You want me to go to my hard copy files and pull my copies of various articles about "Space Cases," which aren't on line, but are for the most part interviews with me, when I can just say right here the things that I said elsewhere years ago, thus giving you first hand now the same things that were published third hand years back. "Self-published commentary?" I already told you my column, "But I Digress," was and is published by Comic Buyer's Guide, which would mean it's not self-published. This is becoming increasingly absurd.Padguy (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This article makes claim to notability. Editors continue to assert this notability. Isn't this a sourcing problem, not an AfD problem? (28 episodes in a show with Mark Hamill, Jewel Staite and George Takei; 18 episodes in a show with Sarah Chalke and Ted Atherton - see IMDB establishing notability of that show; etc.) - BalthCat (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep is not an option. Editors can not assert notability without verification and sources. IMDB is not a reliable source and can not be used to verify nor prove notability. The actor must have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, both to meet WP:N, WP:BIO, and to comply with WP:BLP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this material somehow contentious? Even potentially contentious? Have I missed some BLP policy update that means WP:BLP is of concern when this is not the case? If there are insufficient sources, this is a sourcing issue, not an AfD issue. If you disagree that the asserted notability is notable enough, say that instead. - BalthCat (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claiming a series someone has appeared in wasn't notable seems rather odd, if those series are all blue links, they notable by Wikipedia standards. Is others have stated, some of those series were clearly notable, and the actor was featured in many episodes of them. Dream Focus 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The roles he's been in, and the coverage of him, makes him notable. I would not put much stock, however, in anything said here by the Peter David impersonator, as Peter would never visit a website, show disregard for its policies, pretend that the assertions of someone of unverified identity on a Talk Page is reliable, and speak to others there with such an arrogant, dismissive tone. I mean, seriously, "I am not a Wikipedian. I'm who Wikipedians write about. That may sound self-aggrandizing, but it's not meant to be. It's simply the truth"? Anyone who's read Peter's blog or corresponded with him for many years, and spoken to him in person several times, would not recognize such words as his. Given that Peter has never shown any interest in his own article, it strains credulity to think that he just decided to create an account today to express such support for the articles of someone he worked with years ago. It's obviously just a fan of Ayre trying to ensure the existence of the article.

Btw, sorry I screwed up the page with that edit of mine a little while ago. It was an honest mistake. Nightscream (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I'm indeed a fan of Kristian's, Nightscream, and I prefer to think of my tone as uncompromising. For that matter, if we're going to be using the labels of "arrogant and dismissive," I would ask you to reread the manner in which "Space Cases" is repeatedly referred to (not to mention incorrectly described as running one season) and see how that came across to me as arrogant and dismissive. There's no mystery to my presence here: People bring things to my attention all the time. You should know that; you've done it yourself on any number of occasions. And if you didn't like the way I distinguished myself from people who edit Wiki entries, well, I couldn't think of any other way to describe it. People are talking about finding sources for this and sources for that. I *am* a source. I co-created the series; I hired him. When people seek out interviews in third-person venues, I'm the one being interviewed. When they're looking for columns in third-person venues, I'm the one who wrote them. Sure,"Space Cases" was cover featured in "Variety" back when we started our second season, but I'm not sure where one would find that on line. As for my not showing interest in my own page, you know me well enough to be aware that I'm always faster off the mark to fight for other people's concerns than my own. For instance, people show up on my site and say whatever they want about me and I let it go, but hurls insults at my family and it's another matter. So it's perfectly consistent for me to be inattentive to my own wiki page (although I've always appreciated your endeavors to maintain it, particularly during the times when people tried to trash it) but quicker to take action if I think I see an injustice being done to someone else. That sounds like me, right?Padguy (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Peter David has emailed the volunteer response team with an email address we've been able to confirm. The OTRS ticket is here, 2009110810023389. I've not read what's going on, but if there was any doubt Peter David is User:Padguy, I am able to confirm he is. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Peter also confirmed it with me via email. I stand corrected.

Peter, the fact that someone else exhibited arrogance towards you (which I did not dispute) has no bearing on whether you yourself did. Your previous words seemed a lot like the kinda thing I'd hear from John Byrne. But hey, how you comport yourself is your business, and it seems I miscalculated in thinking you would not say stuff like that.

That said, I would appreciate it if you addressed me by my Wikipedia username, and not by that other name, which I do not use when editing or participating in discussions.

As for the more pertinent issue here, Wikipedia has various policies and guidelines in place to ensure the reliability of its article content. It's important that you understand that notability is determined by whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable publications pertinent to the area in which the subject is notable. Because of this, the personhood of a source is not the sole salient criteria, but the venue of the source. Preferred publications are things like periodical articles, books, and reliable Internet sites would be ones like Newsarama, which is a notable industry publication staffed by journalists and governed by certain editorial controls. The difficulty in tracking down sources like that is noted, but that doesn't change the need for them. Regardless of whether your identity here has been confirmed, we cannot source notability for an article to a Wikipedia Talk Page, since Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a reliable source for notability. Such a practice would be circular, and poor criterion. The fact that you are a colleague/friend of Mr. Ayre also raises the issue of the journalistic objectivity that is generally assumed with sources not connected to the article's subject. Comments like "[he] has every right to be properly represented on Wikipedia" doesn't help matters, since whether one has an article on Wikipedia should be predicated on the notability that can be established by third-party sources not connected with the subject, and not the subject's "right" to have an article. I'm sure you can understand the problem of using your participation on a Wikipedia Talk Page as a source, right?

What I would suggest is that you address any issues of documented fact (as opposed to personal statements like "fine young actor") pertaining to Ayre's notability by providing links to or other citation information on any articles you can find on him that help in this regard. Although I personally think he's noteworthy, doing this might satisfy those who are currently leaning toward "Delete". Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe problem that's being presented is the narrowing scope of "notability." I'm really having trouble wrapping myself around it. "Space Cases," "Andre," "New Ghostwriters," the 1995 film of "Bye Bye Birdie," all have Wikipedia entries. It would therefore seem that these projects are "notable." If only notable projects are in Wikipedia, and these projects are in Wikipedia, then they have already been judged to be notable. Q.E.D. Yet having roles in those projects ranging from co-starring to starring somehow don't count. (And for all I know. all those entries are now going to be targeted for removal as well.) There are any number of independently maintained "Space Cases" websites in which Kristian featurs prominently. Yet those somehow don't count. There is a vast wealth of resource material outside of what's on the web. Yet those don't count. IMDB doesn't count. There seems to be an impressive number of sources that don't fall into the realm of being pertinent or reliable, including apparently Wikipedia itself, which I consider to be just a touch ironic. While I appreciate your suggestion about scouring the web for citation information and articles, a Google check indicates that there are 48,600 hits on his name. I don't think it's particularly reasonable to ask me to scour 48,600 sources for articles about him, especially considering that for all I know, anything else I present will wind up not satisfying the elusive criteria for notability.Padguy (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same discussion we always have with these deletionist people. They try to delete articles for bestselling novels, because they don't have any reviews, and thus can't be notable. And they say the number of Google hits doesn't count either, because it doesn't matter how many people know about something and are talking about it, since their opinions don't matter. Only the opinions of those who are writing reviews for newspapers and magazines matter, we not allowed to think for ourselves, but having to let them make all the decisions instead. Wikipedia used to be different, but then certain types of people rushed in, passed their notability guideline saying nothing they don't like is notable, and then went about mass deleting thousands of articles a week. AFD are all random draws, depending on who is around at the time to comment, and the opinions of the closing administrator. This'll probably close as no consensus, default to keep though. Dream Focus 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exaggerating things a bit, don't you think? Powers ^T 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. IMDb doesn't count because it's user-edited. Anyone can put just anything in there and we can't trust its reliability. Same thing for fan sites; we don't have any way to verify how accurate information on those sites is. Powers ^T 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're basically saying that IMDB can't be trusted because other people can edit it, and therefore Kristian's list of credits on there is suspect? Okay, well...first of all, irony again considering people level the same charge at Wikipedia. Second, you do realize that if you go to Variety's website and enter Kristian's name, between the list of movie credits and the reviews of his various TV shows, you get pretty much all the same information. Since it seems a safe assumption that Variety's site is not prone to being edited by others, doesn't that give you what you need?Padguy (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[49] is just a list of three roles he's played. I don't think any of those bare facts are in dispute. Okay, so here's the deal. There are a number of different interests we have to satisfy here. One is notability. We can't have articles on every actor in the world, so we have to have some sort of inclusion criteria, which we've grouped together as a metric of "notability". In particular, we have to look and see if independent, reliable, published sources have chosen to write in detail about a particular topic. Why do we require this? Well:

We require independent sources so that we know it's not just advertising or self-aggrandizement. Kristian's own web site, for instance, is reliable and published, but not independent.
We require reliable sources so that we have some basic assurance that our data is accurate. A biography appearing on IMDb, for instance, is independent and published but not reliable.
And we require published sources so that other people can verify our data. A personal interview with you, to take an example, would be independent and reliable but not published.

Now, to be fair, a person for whom we cannot find such sources may in fact be notable. That we can't find the sources doesn't mean they don't exist, but neither can we simply assume that they do. We need to use those sources, though, to write the article. If we can't find enough sources to prove notability, then we have very little to go on to write an article. Powers ^T 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered a reliable source because it has no editorial controls for its content. Wikipedia does, as seen by discussions like this one. In addition, editors are not permitted to cite other Wikipedia articles (See WP:CIRCULAR), and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has stated that Wikipedia should be used only as a starting point in research, with which a researcher should follow the citations to the original sources, and not as a primary source in itself. So ironic as you may find it, but these policies are perfectly consistent and reasonable.

Again, putting aside the DreamFocus' exaggerations, I think Ayre is easily notable, given that he was on a TV series for two seasons, created by and co-starring a number of noteworthy people, that won a Cable Ace Award, etc. It's obvious that there are sources out there; we just need some patience in allowing editors to find them and cite them. To this end, a {{refimprove}} tag on the article would be perfectly reasonable. Deleting it would not. Nightscream (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of three roles he's played? Well...no. If you don't click on the word "More" then it's a list of three roles he's played. If you click on "More" then it's a list of half a dozen or so movies that he's been in, and that doesn't count the other articles which detail the TV series he's been in. I mean, I pointed you to the exact sort of source you're asking for to verify Kristian's list of roles and then you didn't actually use it and mischaracterized it to boot. Do you see why I consider the proposition of combing through 48,600 google hits for more evidence to be a dubious notion at best? Between this and the pronoun problems and misinformation about "Space Cases," do you see why I might look with raised eyebrow at claims of all this dedication to getting things right and my inability to understand why Kristian's entry is being subjected to this level of scrutiny? I mean, this is quite a can of worms being opened here. This is my introduction to the entire notion of discussions about deletion, and thus far it's been riddled with misinformation and contradictions. And that's just the one I know about. It makes any reasonable person wonder how many of the hundreds of other discussions are likewise based upon misinformation. It's like when I read newspaper articles about comic books and I see they get all kinds of stuff wrong. In the grand scheme of things, comic books aren't really that important: Not when compared to things like health care or the economy. So it makes me wonder how many other things the newspapers get wrong that I don't know about. Doesn't build confidence, is all I'm saying.Padguy (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right, I didn't see the More button. But my point stands -- it's still just a list of roles. I don't think anyone has disputed that he has played a number of roles, nor what those roles are. What we need is biographical information. Powers ^T 13:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I figured that was exactly what people were disputing--the number of roles he had and what those roles were. For instance, there was a whole exchange above (with the woman who still hasn't acknowledged she didn't even know Kristian's gender) about a role being "major" or not. So I thought that WAS the issue. Now you need "biographical" information? This is making less and less sense to me. Look, I've sat behind a casting table and the only measure of an actor's "notability" was his CV. We didn't give a rip about where he was born, his parents' names, where he went to high school, if he made the Dean's list in college or even--frankly--his reviews. We cared about his roles, period. An actor whose resume consisted of being in the background of a commercial was less "notable" than an actor who had starred in three TV series. So now IMDB's limitation is that its biographical information isn't necessarily trustworthy? Perhaps your point stands, but I'm not seeing the point of your point. (And by the way, I'm just curious: Are you guys SURE that IMDB has no internal editorial braintrust that in fact vets the information? Do you know this first hand? I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but there has been factual error after factual error put forth by you guys in this discussion, so how am I to know that when you say IMDB is unreliable, that I can take your word for it since thus far this discussion has been pockmarked with unreliable information.) Again, this seemingly elastic, amorphous definition of what's required to have a Wikipedia entry is becoming increasingly perplexing to me, is all I'm saying.Padguy (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the reality of a community-edited encyclopedia. Think of us like USENET trying to actually produce something useful. We aren't all going to be giving you the same message because we don't all agree on everything.
There are a number of issues at play here. One is notability -- and we aren't a casting director, so we have different standards than you would when you are looking to cast a role. And notability has many facets -- there's "is he likely to be notable based on his verified body of work", "can we prove he's notable by referencing reliable sources", etc. Because we all have different definitions of what makes a topic notable, we have to rely on external sources. So far, no one has presented an external source that has covered Kristian in enough detail for use to consider him notable.
As I said before, though, that doesn't mean he isn't notable, just that we can't prove it to our normal level of satisfaction (and some people in this discussion believe that we can, so please just take the above as my own opinion).
The discussion about what he has and has not appeared in was oriented to get to the bottom of the question "is he likely to be notable based on his verified body of work?" There are many cases in which we decide to keep an article because the subject's specific properties indicate that there should be sources out there that we can use, we just haven't found them yet. For actors, I would say that Kristian's body of work is right on the borderline between someone we should expect to find sources about and someone who just may have flown under the media radar so far. If the former is more correct, then his article is likely to be kept; if the latter is more correct, we'll wait and write an article once other media sources have done so.
-- Powers ^T 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many times you italicize "other media sources" we're going to wind up going right back to my original point: most of those media sources are going to have me at their core, whether it's as the writer or the interviewee, and that's where this entire standard to which you're holding Kristian's entry falls apart. For instance: If I had never participated in this discussion at all, and someone else had endeavored to point out the July 19, 1996 issue of "Comic Buyers Guide" which describes Kristian's being a featured guest at an SF convention in London and subsequently being a special guest on the set of "Red Dwarf" and dining with the show's cast and creator, or the May 2, 1997 issue of that same publication which talks about "Space Cases" describing the terrific cast and listing him first, would that be considered a reliable source about his "notability?" Yes? Okay, except I wrote both those columns, so now those...what? They don't count? That's what I'm talking about when I speak of the vagueness and elasticity. Also, your selection of what is acceptable and not acceptable is odd. You basically describe the entirety of Usenet as useless, so I see where the attitude that dismisses fan sites comes from. You dismiss IMDB out of hand, except in actually doing some research, I found this at the IMDB site describing their information-gathering process: "(A)bout 70% of our staff is dedicated to processing the massive amounts of information we receive and add to the database every week. In addition to using as many sources as we can get our hands on, our data goes through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible." So basically they have a staff that edits this material whereas you guys are community-edited and, by your own words, can't all agree. But IMDB isn't up to your standards? Look, I don't pretend to be the brightest bulb in the box, so maybe this is all clear to far smarter people than I, but from my POV, this is bizarre, inconsistent, and not the least bit resembling anything that I learned to constitute "journalism" back when I was getting my BA in Journalism during the Mesozoic era.Padguy (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the reference above to your column in Comics Buyer's Guide. Without having it available in front of me, I can't say how significant its coverage is. I can't find anywhere in the above discussion where anyone questioned the reliability or independence of such a source; no one has said it "doesn't count". If we can somehow find a copy of that issue of CBG, that would probably be enough satisfy my notability concerns. Powers ^T 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powers: "What we need is biographical information." Um, no, what we need is information that pertains to the reasons why the subject is notable, and that's a question of his career, which is part of his "biography".

Padguy: "...most of those media sources are going to have me at their core..." Peter, who the person is that a story has "at their core" is not the basis upon which the reliability of a source is measured for notability. It's the place where the material is reported. This is because organizations that are considered reliable generally are assumed to have a group editorial process with some type of credentialing of its staff, and/or some practice of discriminating with the material it decides to publish or not publish. A single individual, even a famous or respected one, asserting notability for a friend and colleague, does not share this same element. I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to understand the problems that what you're suggesting would lead to. If Wikipedia allowed notability of a subject to be conferred merely by a single person, don't you see the abuse to which such an indiscriminate standard would open up? Put this way:

Think a public figure who is considered notable in their field. Maybe, despite their stature, they're someone whose judgment and responsibility you personally don't think is that great. Now imagine they have a friend who's done some work in that field, but very minor, obscure work. That public figure wants ensure that their friend gets a Wikipedia article, so he asserts that they're notable, and claims himself as the source. Wouldn't this become a problem under the system you insist upon? It is for this reason that notability is derived from whether a subjected is recognized by third party sources, and that refers to publications, venues, awards given, etc., and not individual people. It is for this reason that pointing out the issues of CBG that covered Ayre is appropriate, because CBG is the reliable source, and not because "Well, Peter David said so." If you, John Jackson Miller, Tony Isabella, Bob Ingersoll, etc. didn't have CBG as the venue in which to publish your work, and it was only seen on your personal blog, it would not be reliable.

As for IMDB, I've long-believed that there needs to be a more decisive, project-wide consensus discussion or policy decision on its reliability, because while most think it's unreliable, many think it's unreliable only for biographical information, and perfectly reliable for credit listings, and in general, it remains a controversial issue. Nightscream (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reiterate that we need biographical data beyond simply a list of credits. A simple list of credits is pure data and not representative of the "significant coverage" required by WP:N.

Delete - lots of little roles does not mean significant roles to pass WP:N. IMDB is not generally reliable, but like blogs, IMDB can be used as a source. I would not stake my claim on it. Nor would I use myself as a source. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - A series of co-starring roles are not "little." He was one of the leads in "Space Cases," for instance, not a second season walk on. Your vote is based upon misinformation. Then again, Powers just got through telling me that whether the roles are major or not is not a point of contention. But you're saying they are. Frankly, it's amazing anything gets resolved, ever.Padguy (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I said no such thing. I said that the fact of him playing particular roles was not in question. The prominence of those roles is a legitimate question. I assume Bearian is of the opinion that Space Cases was not a significant enough production that its starring roles would be considered "big". I'm not sure I agree, but we all have our own opinions here. Powers ^T 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm suprized at the defense of him above, when little reliable sources have been given to show that he meets our notability criteria. I myself haven't found significant coverage of this biography through multiple google searches and database searches such as EBSCO, Lexis Nexis, and Jstor. 24 entires came up in a newspaper search, but all of them were trivial coverage/passing mentions. The "Jessies" are not notable enough awards to meet WP:CREATIVE. Them From Space 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has had a significant role in one notable television show, multiple roles are needed for WP:ENT. Space Cases is notable and this (a reliable, third party source) shows that it ran for two seasons, that it is about 5 kids, and that Mr Ayre portrayed one of them. If someone can show that one of his other roles meets these criteria I will happily change my !vote. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chris Rush. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milking The Rhino (Dangerously Funny Lists)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable book (fails WP:NOTABILITY). Created by single purpose account User:Fred1296 promoting Chris Rush (which is an obvious sockpuppet of blocked User:Tony159). Disputed prod. Not to be confused with documentary film "Milking The Rhino". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book has an ISBN number so it meets the base criteria for notability but I can't find any coverage of the book whatsoever. If the nom thinks User:Fred1296 is a sockpuppet, this isn't the appropriate place to discuss it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that having an ISBN is a bare minimum threshold requirement (for books published since the ISBN came into common use) to even be considered for notability, but not a sign of notability in itself. It would be like saying that a football (soccer) player met the base criteria for notability because he has a jersey with a number on it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge with Chris Rush. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' with Chris Rush. Not enough notability to merit its own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing to Merge, as explained below. Non-notable as above, any encyclopedic information from this article can be moved to the Chris Rush article, which is also pretty sparse. Dayewalker (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daye. Isn't that an argument for a merge? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be taken as such, although there's only about a sentence worth of information in this article that's usable. The remaining information the creator keeps adding isn't encyclopedic. I'll change to merge, if that'll help speed this along. Dayewalker (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge to Chris Rush. The guy and his book just aren't that notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RationalPlan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product, article by SPA. None of the references listed are significant, and I was unable to find any such coverage. Haakon (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough to have an article. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with addition of some references not notable. The references mentioned are not notable themselves. Apple download page doesn't make the software notable. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 11:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been written by a series of single-purpose users; one of them says he represents the product development team (source) and is now engaging each delete-commenter on their talk pages. This amounts to a conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-consumer software; links offered are only downloads or not sources of the sort that can confer notability. I proposed to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Before proceeding to change the article I'd like to have a good understanding of the problem. One suggest that article should be deleted because links are not from notable sites ("If you mentioned sites like ZDNet or Engadget that would make difference." he says). I had a look on the net and found out the product is actually listed on one of the suggested sites (please see http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=1173045&tag=content;col1) and is also listed on twocows or apple. So I don't understand what "listed on notable site means ... apple/twocows are sites which I consider as notable and ZDNet (suggested by you) also found the product good enough to list it on their site. Now another note says "links offered are only downloads or not sources of the sort that can confer notability" : Please see (Top PM Software Reviews - MindView and RationalPlan Multi Project at brighthub (already listed as reference in the article) which is written by an independent ProjectManager who happened to find it again notable enough to mention it as a Top PM desktop tool ... I'll look on the net for an older article in pmi.org (which is a recognized authority in Project Management) but it might be that the article is only available for subscribers :( The product is also ranked #4 in an independent TopTen Desktop Project Management tools (please see http://project-management-software-review.toptenreviews.com/rationalplan-multi-project-review.html or http://project-management-software-review.toptenreviews.com/index.html). So I'm afraid I might not understand your criteria ... Could you please explain (I also read notability from wik and it seems to me RationalPlan is good enough for wiki notability criteria) Thanks again 194.102.135.133 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "TopTenReviews" (another SPA article), I noticed this edit, claiming: "This site charges software authors for reviews and places the highest paying ones at the top.". If that is the case, this is not a usable reference. Haakon (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is simply not true. We never paid anything to TopTenReviews to put us there ! Don't know where did you get this ... At the first stage RationalPlan was ranked #5, in the next year we got to #4; again we never ever paid anything for that. I also want to mention TopTenReviews is listed on wiki so it looks like it is a usable reference. Here is yet another (recent) proposal for a list of desktop project management tools : http://www.isoftwarereviews.com/project-management-software-reviews/ Again RationalPlan was selected ... Don't know who these guys are, etc. and trus me, we did not paid for RationalPlan to be selected there.
    - I didn't claim you paid; I found a revision comment that claimed the site takes payment for reviews. Please review what I wrote. Haakon (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In the meantime I looked for RationalPlan at Project Management Institute (http://www.pmi.org/) The product is presented in their printed magazine(August 2008, VOLUME 22, No.8/ February 2009, VOLUME 23, No.2, pag.76) but again, I'm afraid it will only be available for subscribers (http://www.pmnetwork-digital.com/pmnetwork/200902?pg=78&search_term=rationalplan&search_term=rationalplan#pg78). Hopefully you will find at least pmi.org as a source that can confer notability 194.102.135.133 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a useful source that should be included. The fact that it is only available to paying subscribers is not ideal in my opinion, but does not detract from its validity as a reference (see FUTON bias). Haakon (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't find anything useful for confirmation of the notability at the referenced pages. Still delete. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said on your talk page: "The sites you mentioned are not notable. If you mentioned sites like ZDNet or Engadget that would make difference". I did a search on the net and found out the product is actually listed on ZDNet: http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=1173045&tag=content;col1. So I should understand that the site you mentioned as notable is now no longer notable ?!
    - The link in question is just a download page; the verbage there is not significant or independent (it's reused on many other pages according to Google). This is not a usable reference. Haakon (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Did some rework on the article already so hopefully you are OK with it now. Now as I always said, if apple would think the product is good enough to list it on their site, if ZDNet, twocows will do the same, if TopTenReview would rank it at #4, if pmi.org would ask us data about the product to have articles there (I can produce the emails) but you still think the product can't have a simple page on wiki ... I can't help to notice that some of you guys have also removed RationalPlan from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software so I might suspect you have an interest that RationalPlan is in now way listed on wiki (as this could maybe help your own products ?) There is simply no other logical explanation than that ... Out of the blue, a site that YOU suggested is no longer valid, out of the blue someone suggests that we paid TopTenReviews to put RationalPlan in the top (which again, is simply not true. Belive me, Microsoft did not paid for their #1 rank either :) ) ... Hopefully an independent third pary will review this debate in the end 86.126.78.101 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We all are independent third parties. There is no conspiracy; please don't assume ill faith. I also have to point out that it seems like there are now two of you representing the company in this debate, and this is a serious issue of conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How could I assume good faith when someone is suggesting that ZDNet would be a usable reference and then I search and find that the product is actually listed there, provide the link but then ZDNet become a a non valid source ? Also, how can I assume good faith when someone is suggesting we paid to TopTenReviews to list the product there ? :( (when I know we did not and my guess is that this can be verified too ... Wiki lists TopTenReviews as a notable source and not one that charges to list products there ). Twocows is a valid source ? Then here it is: http://www.tucows.com/preview/513232?q=RationalPlan
    - Download pages don't make software notable. And it does not matter whether it is good or bad. Notability matters. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was only one representant of the company, only I edited this page from home; I never hidden this, on the contrary, please remember I said it right from the start. I never tried to make it a "commercial" but rather placed on wiki a simple/short info about what RationalPlan is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.78.101 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On User talk:SkyBon#RationalPlan page, 194.102.135.133 argues that "taking [the RationalPlan article] out of wiki[pedia] might prevent [the product] from getting spread." I take this as an admission that the motivation for the article is promotional. Also note that the article has been deleted three times before. Haakon (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I could agree with you if by notable you mean famous ... indeed RationalPlan is not a famous package (as MS Project is for example). It is however a fair application, much better than lot of other applications in the same area which are already listed on wiki; if you would be a project manager you would say right away that GanttProject is simply a joke while RationalPlan is almost an MS Project at 1/10 of the cost (platform independent too). GanttProject is accepted on wiki but there is a big problem with RationalPlan it seems ... As far as I understand wiki, it is not a collection of "only famous stuff" but rather a comprehensive Encyclopedia; since Apple has listed RationalPlan it means at least that is a decent/fair application, please notice you won't find GanttProject there for example. I would also say again that some guys which are working in project management areas are finding RationalPlan notable enough to rank it #4 in a top-ten list. It could be that RationalPlan is relatively new in the market but good reviews are starting to come up (http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/reviews/36244.aspx); I guess this one you will find as not notable again while the TopTenReview would be "suspicious" (though is accepted on wiki ...) and apple listing would be "only a download link" (though it is obvious that apple won't list crap on their site). If it won't be a confidentiality issue I could provide the proof that one of the top ten banks in the world is evaluating RationalPlan for a complete replacement of MS project throughout the whole company/worldwide; this for me would mean that the product is quite notable (hopefully the deal will come through and trigger some embarrassment maybe). I'll rest my case by saying the the article has nothing promotional in it's nature, the messages from me were fair and I have put it right from the first post that I represented the company (and I have my suspicions not everybody was that open/fair). 194.102.135.133 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your company is afraid that losing Wikipedia coverage will mean losing a part of PR. Apple download page doesn't make the software notable. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 12:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what we have in lieu of third party reliable sources. ~YellowFives 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of articles about products without notable sources. Marketing has made Wikipedia into a first stop in an advertising plan. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Bro[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero-level notabilty. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Haakon (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable product, not mentioned in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bears and Global Warming[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK. It is a repetition of information at global warming, effects of global warming and polar bears. 14 of the 18 references are to wikipedia itself. Maybe at some point a sensible split can be made from Polar bears#Global warming but trying to salvage anything useful from this will be difficult. Also this is not a good name for that article as it is just an amalgamation of two separate things. So saving it as a redirect seems pointless. Polargeo (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay that sources all of its points to other Wikipedia articles. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete WP:POVFORK & poorly referenced. "Global warming and polar bears are interchangeable" should really say it all. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a proper article, although well intentioned. An article could be written on the topic, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort to do so. Probably better to have a section in Polar bear. Redddogg (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Martin451 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original synthesis of WP references. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are WP:OR and WP:RS problems. Warrah (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found the topic interesting and read the article, but could not learn anything from it - I have only a common knowledge of global warming, but even though, the article appeared too trivial. (technical comment - references are a disaster) Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Global Warming and Polar Bears are interchangeable" is an interesting sentence, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Next time it's a really hot day, I'm going to say, "That may be a sign of polar bears." Mandsford (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article using wikipedia as main source.--Staberinde (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly inappropriate as a POV fork. Topic already covered adequately under polar bear and global warming/climate change. Steven Walling 05:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S.D.Shad[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear from the very badly written article whether this man ever held any office sufficiently high to meet WP:POLITICIAN, or whether he meets WP:BIO more generally. Moreover, this is a WP:BLP with no reliable sources; the cited document http://www.app.com.pk/en/pdf/punjab.pdf is merely a list of candidates of unclear provenance and I can't even find S.D.Shad on it. A previous WP:PROD nomination was removed with the comment "deleted grotesque portion". Sandstein 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was one of 15 candidates in an election for a parliamentary seat for Bahawalnagar in Pakistan, and got 393 out of the 58,041 votes cast, finishing in ninth place. Even the 2nd place finishers aren't entitled to their own article, though anyone, including Mr. Shad, can attempt to prove notability in other ways. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does anyone know his full name? I've just gone through the references and I can't see it anywhere. No one can assert notability until we know who this person is. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The results for the race he was in were at the very bottom of the link. After getting through the candidates named Arshad and Irshad, I finally got to S.D. Shad. It's possible that this is a relative of the article's author, User:Abshad. Mandsford (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know that, I was hoping that someone had his full name. I'm sure there are hundreds of S.D. Shad's in the world! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Mandsford. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finflation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable. Searches via Google and Google Scholar primarily turn up mis-spellings of "inflation". Appears to be used as resume fodder for page author at http://www.nazar.info/ CRETOG8(t/c) 10:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no establishment of notability of independent coverage and/or usage of this coinage in reliable sources. Article sourcing currently consists of the coiner, Prof Nazar's, website and other wikipedia pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless author of term is notable and then a merge would be in order. But I don't think the guy has an article and he doesn't appear to be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neologism has no substantiated claim to notability, and the same goes for its author. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. A search in Google Scholar or in IDEAS (search), the specialized search engine for scientific articles in economics, doesn't show anything either. CronopioFlotante (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In economics there is a list of different types of "flations" that could be assembled on WP, but as a standalone item I say delete. It is a well-done article, but if WP wants notoriety as a prerequisite for entries, then you must delete this one.TheThomas (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Child Left Inside Act of 2009[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a bill alone is not itself notable Cynof Gavuf 10:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to No Child Left Behind Act. Xqe (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proposed legislation can be notable. I added references to indicate to put this proposed legislation into context. A similar measure was passed by the United States House of Representatives about a year ago, but did not become law. Environmental education is a separate matter from the No Child Left Behind Act, although this bill has a similar name. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Proposed legislation can be notable or it cannot be notable. Which one is it? This bill is not a wide interest. This only reflects students. Everyone else really doesn't care. Xqe (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't require "wide interest", it just requires appropriate sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Education in the United States or a similar article, this isn't notable enough to stand up on its own. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bill alone is not necessarily notable. Some can be, if they have received enough discussion, and this is one of them. Proposed, or even failed, legislation can be of great historical interest and should be covered in an encyclopedia if significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (FWIW, I was asked to have a look at this, but I would have seen it in any case.) DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every piece of proposed legislation gets significant coverage in reliable sources, but this one already has. WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant here; the article is not predicting that the legislation will be proposed, nor is it predicting that the bill will pass. The only question is notability, and the four sources presently in the article demonstrate this.--otherl left 19:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources are sufficient to meet WP:N. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge per YellowFives below - no solid substantial evidence of actual notability. A cute name and a letter in the New York Times do not constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WBAL Radio and Mother Nature Network sources? --Explodicle (T/C) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MNN is okay, if a smidgen specialized; but local talk shows don't qualify as significant coverage, in my book. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article makes no claim of notability for this bill. For a unpassed bill to be notable, we would need to see a great deal more debate (as far as I can tell, there is none). Present sources in the article are about all there is, and they are not enough. Abductive (reasoning) 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much would be enough? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source or two that says that this proposed bill has generated some controversy or journalistic or scholarly analysis. Take the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as an example. It has a real history, including prior opposition on the Senate floor, the support of candidate Obama and then being the first act signed by Barack Obama (on January 29). Abductive (reasoning) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just added some sourced coverage of the controversy, including a quote from an analyst. It's still not as good as the Fair Pay Act article, but I think we've got a decent starting point. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is proposed legislation that hasn't even crossed the president's desk. There is NOTHING notable about this bill other than the reporting that it exists. Cynof Gavuf 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, for now, into a new article No Child Left Inside (movement)? The states of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, at a minimum, have endorsed the movement with state-level initiatives using the exact phrase "No Child Left Inside". [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Since I may not get around to creating that article soon, could someone save it somewhere so I can use it later? Novickas (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a draft rewrite of the article as a movement [55]. With more refs. But wait, there's more. Washington Post [56], Philadelphia Inquirer [57], the US Geological Survey [58]. Novickas (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Novickas' suggestion. The article at User:Novickas/Sandbox is pretty good, and shows notability beyond this one piece of legislation. It's much more likely to pass any future AFD. So move that into article space and make this a redirect. ~YellowFives 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemassacre's Monster Madness[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I love James Rolfe's work but how can this have an article when Cinemassacre as a whole does not have one? BUC (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wishing to be "viral" doesn't make it so. If someone wants to demonstrate notability of Cinemassacre in the usual way, sources would have to be added. Otherwise, this is nothing more than a set of links to the YouTube videos, and YouTube has its own navigation system. Mandsford (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after making a concerted effort I can't find any sources which would support notability for this subject. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into broader article on Cinemassacre. As per what nom noted, this is a popular, influential and notable series. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge It's a useful piece of info, and why should a few people decide what is interesting, it may be interesting to some people. Or at least make an article about Cinemassacre and place this article on that page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.131.174 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be merged into an article on James D. Rolfe, whose work is the subject of at least one other article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems unnecessary. There are thousands of similar videos on Bllip/YouTube. CB's Movie Reviews for example.

CB's Movie Reviews? You don't see the difference between someone showing still images of recent films and telling his opinion on a film and someone going into full detail of the history of a genré? Why does even Angry Video Game Nerd or Nostaliga Critic have a website if you all think it's so unimportant? Can't you at least MERGE the info into the James D. Rolfe page so people can now the episode guide and what the series is about. I thought that's what Wikipedia did, share information, not delete for no reason except that "there are other similar videos we don't have listed on this site, so let's remove this." Seriously. Get your head out of your asses. Do you think I spent 6 hours providing links to an episode guide just to see it deleted? If I knew Wikipedia admins hated Information so much, I wouldn't even have bothered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidChid (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harmon (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs supplied, nor found. Fails WP:BIO Triwbe (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of several widely published (Image Comics) and independently produced comic books. Plenty of substantial coverage in the sources cover thsi topic area for example: [59] and [60]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews aren't independent coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frokus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding enough reliable sources Cynof Gavuf 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article to include some sources. There are not many, but hopefully two is enough for now. Invot (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't able to find any reliable sources about this band, there were a few about the military operations with the same name. Fails WP:N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This isn't a notable article. I searched google and got only 5000 hits. Btilm 22:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The article states that they will be opening for Pearl Jam, which will be a very notable event in the time line of alternative rock music. Also, out of all the bands from their area (Bay City) they do return close to the most results on Google. Though only 5,000, that is still a significant amount of results. Invot (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the speedy deletion criteria. Articles for deletion is more demanding. This page does not meet that criteria. Cynof Gavuf 11:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hack Movies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy removed by admin (and a PROD will likely be contested). I do not believe this article has any bona fide WP:RS indicating encyclopedic notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure why the lengthy message I had written here is now gone. I'm not really sure why admins and content editors here on this site continue to remove my content just because they believe this article to be invalid due to the content. The matter should not be about content but about notoriety just as the guidelines state and instead I am being attacked and ignored. I do not appreciate it.

Onto what I had written before...If you will see many of the new references I have given, you will see the many interviews and media talk that has been given to the director and other members of this production company, its cast, and crew. You will also see the references to the company and recent titles' IMDbPro Starmeter. This is disregarded by many but only the ignorant who do not understand how it works and why it is in place. The Starmeter is a reference of the popularity of a given title, company, or person on IMDb. To consecutively have a number below 10,000 is rather significant. To have the numbers where they are currently for Hack Movies and the title CockHammer is profound. It shows that there is major buzz throughout the planet for this entitys because in order for the Starmeter to improve the title, person, or company must be physically searched through the database search function (it doesn't count for a hyperlink for that entity to be simply clicked on).Erkman27 (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (CST)

I appreciate the work you've done in adding citations to the article, but they are not reliable sources from Wikipedia's point of view. Especially IMDB. IMDB is user-generated and cannot be used as reference in this way. As for the other references, none of appear to me to be WP:RS. To quote the guideline: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." When Hack Movies begins to generate significant coverage in mainstream media or film industry trades -- say, a Variety (magazine) story or something of that ilk -- then you'd have a case. At least, that's my opinion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – IMDbPro Starmeter falls under WP:ELNO (Links normally to be avoided) because it requires a paid registration. — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would disagree with Erkman27, most of the sources are movie reviews, which couldn't feasibly establish notability for the movie and definitely not for the company who created it. Some of the links to interviews with the head of the company are dead ends and the other interviews are about the man himself and his work, not the company. There might be enough to establish the notability of Kevin Strange here but the company needs some reliable sources reporting on it before it will meet WP:N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Keep Okay, notability is marginal, but this article covers several movies, the filmakers and actors involved. They've had substantial write ups including one by We Are Movie Geeks [61]. After watching the trailer, I can only conclude that it is very important to the sum of all human knowlege that this subject is included. Their latest movie looks kind of awesome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, seems like another wannabe filmmaker/actor who can not make it on talent so they artificially try to shortcut to notability/fame and advert by listing on Wiki. The sources listed are not reliable, they boil down to imdb, blogs and reviews- none of which are RS.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, let's try not to be too harsh, remember these are real people with feelings. His work isn't my cup of tea, either, but maybe he'll be the next John Waters, someday. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Low-budget" tends to imply "not yet notable", unless legitimate high-profile awards and/or reviews can be supplied. DS (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a verified celebrity on TruthTweet (site that verifies celebrity Twitter users) I don't know if that counts for this page but I thought I'd throw it in there. Also, Hack is officially endorsed by Troma founder and all-around crazy guy Lloyd Kaufman. Lloyd Kaufman intro to Dream Reaper User:Erkman27 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (CST)
- I'd be happy to be proven wrong, however, neither YouTube nor Twitter is generally acceptable as a reliable source, here in Wikipedia, per WP:TWITTER. Keep in mind that even if Hack Movies is deleted, it doesn't mean that the article couldn't be re-created at a later date, when you get more mainstream press. I would however strongly discourage you from doing so yourself, per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Focus on your work; let someone who's genuinely neutral create the article, in due time. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is exactly what I was talking about before. You shouldn't be paying attention to the fact that the content happens to be on Twitter or YouTube. You should be paying attention to the content itself and what it represents. Both Lloyd Kaufman and Troma Entertainment are notable, verified articles here on Wiki and they have both endorsed Hack Movies. Concerning the Twitter thing, you have failed to do your research on Truth Tweet to see how it works and why it's important (the service should actually have its own article as it was the first of its kind to do what it does and has a database larger than similar service Valebrity).Erkman27 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2009 (CST)
    - Comment – Sounds like User:Erkman27 (Erik A. Williams) has violated Wikipedia:Conflict of interest … that makes the article little more than blatant vanispamcruftisement … regarding Twitter, you really need to read about Self-published sources (online and paper). — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm seriously tired of the blatent bs from all these people who are obviously too close-minded to see past the content and do their research to see the merit of the links and references I've provided which should more than qualify the company and the movie title for Wiki articles. Concerning violating VSCA, I was simply trying to provide further links to support the notability of the Hack Movies page. If Tom Hanks, Britney Spears, or Steve Jobs was updating an article, they would not be called out for violating VSCA. It the same bs IMDB pulls when adding a new title. It seems Wiki admins and mods hold the same sort of discrimination they do when it comes to adding content. If someone isn't already a "name" (as IMDB calls it) or "notable" (as you call it) or simply "in" with one of the content editors or admins, our information is not eligible to be included. It is the same deal with Twitter (Facebook, YouTube, etc). If it was a verified page, say Miley Cyrus or Shaquille O'Neal or whatever, it wouldn't be questioned. But since I'm not important, the same discriminatory POV's come into play. That's pretty ridiculous to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have added a link to Fangoria's release of the CockHammer trailer. I don't suppose you would actually consider Fangoria a non-reliable source since they have been the leading name in horror for over thirty years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkman27 (talk• contribs) 06:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't change my vote. This trailer is on the "independent sister site Gorezone" which doesn't appear notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, though you'll likely create one now. Having a online trailer on a start-up website still does not equal encyclopedic notability for the film or least of all, Hack Movies.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess what I should have called Gorezone is "Fangoria's sister site FOR INDIES," instead of independent site. Gorezone and Fangoria are one just like IMDB and Amazon are one. In other words, the trailer was officially and exclusively released by Fangoria themselves. Again, as I keep saying to everyone here, DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Delete – Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:GNG notability criteria … nothing but a link farm for IMDb bios of various NN actors. Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{05:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Endless Sporadic (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another article on An Endless Sporadic by another spa, with (band) in the title to bypass salt and allow creation. Not much has changed since last afds (nomination 1 and original location afd). No real notability shown. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Delete and salt like the old location. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This won't be a SNOW delete, it will be a BLIZZARD delete. Note to deleting admin: An_Endless_Sporadic_(album), Andy Gentile, Ameliorate (album) all redirect to the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all related articles. No sign that it passes WP:BAND no matter how many blogs may make mentions. --Triwbe (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creating the article with "(band)" in the title may get it past the salting of An Endless Sporadic, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no indication of notability. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Trying a G4 speedy. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Not a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. Tznkai (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kumquat Computer Corporation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this AfD because of BLP challenges. This web site has existed on Wikipedia since 2006 and is a parody web site which satires and criticizes the more significant results of the history-making business career of Carly Fiorina. [Refactored. This is not a forum. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)] In this nomination, I am not making a recommendation either way: I am simply responding to the challenge and attempting to draw wider input from the community on the matter.--Popovvk (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further, I see snow in the forecast. Simply not notable, no apparent reliable sources exist, and may well be an attempt to circumvent wp:blp's heightened sourcing requirement. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a parody website. No current sources in article (even before recent changes), none found after quick search. Link to website currently goes to a parody blog. As justen noted, this article is being used to "source" material for a BLP article. Parody sites are a dime a dozen (even after inflation!), this one doesn't have anything to establish notability. Ravensfire (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After years of stability, J suddenly tore the article down to a few sentences. In response, some solid citations have been added.--75.37.30.245 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the original author of the article and the owner of the Kumquat website, I agree - delete it. I do not approve of the recent expansion of the article. The original merely described the parody site and the artistic tools used to create it. I am not at all interested in getting involved in a political battle over this, period. Thank you for respecting my opinion. So go and delete it. LJ, Hampton, NJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.203.215 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That stability is purely from obscurity more than anything else, but when this article was mentioned as supporting the notability for a reference in another article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help, help, help! The AfD nominators are chopping this down to two sentences with no citations! That is cheating! Help!--76.195.214.54 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (tentative) - the article is undergoing tremendous revision. What started as an unremarkable blurb about an apparently non-notable(but IMHO bitingly funny!) parody, with no references, is as of this moment a superficially well-referenced article. However, deeper review shows the references either fail to support the apparently referenced statements of the article, or are dragged in for the sake of having another "reference" in the article, using a not-reliable-in-the-Wikipedia-sense source. An example of this is the statement in the article: "For many years, the name "Kumquat Computer Corporation" is a name that is occasionally used as a hypothetical business name in examples for real business law course academic problems", with 2 references. As George Carlin noted, the kumquat is "the funniest food of all"; it is utterly unremarkable that people have used it in made-up names; documenting that someone has done so adds nothing to article, drawing conclusions based on that fact that the name has been used elsewhere is also original research. Most importantly, the current version of the article is a WP:COATRACK for attacking Carly Fiorina. The tentative is because there's some outside chance that this article might be expanded into a real Wikipedia article, with proper references that demonstrate notability. At the moment however, the article is going the wrong way; better to revert to the original or delete and (if proper sources exist and notability established) start over. Studerby (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What references are you referring to? One academic paper may be mentioning to the actual subject of this article; the others are, as you put it, all superficial or unreliable. None establish, or even go anywhere near wp:web notability. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (tentative) First of all, thank you for your comments about the site itself. As the site creator and ORIGINAL article author, let me make a few additional comments about this matter. Back in 2004 when the site was created - and into 2005 when it was very popular (2 million distinct users) it was indeed notable. It was probably the most popular business parody on the web and it used some very creative fast turnaround artwork tools. That's why I put up the original article. It was never linked to any famous person's page although it did note that Karla Fidora was often compared to a real person. In 2005, we changed the site from talking about PH Corporation to Kumquat. The reason was that a lot of people did not understand the "HP" jokes and we had lots and lots of material from many years in the industry and wanted to broaden the appeal. That's when we put up the Kumquat domain name. Unfortunately, we had REAL projects to work on, so the fun project slipped into obscurity. Recently we put up the karlaforsenate site/blog which continues the Karla Fidora story. I decided to have the kumquatcomputer.com domain name go over there because the old site still has some loyal fans and I wanted to make sure they could easily find it. But it has nothing to do with Kumquat Computer - which is now just a memory. So the current article is obsolete and should be deleted. The new blog is not really notable - although I do really hope you all enjoy it. That is the full and complete story about Kumquat. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. Best regards, Lou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.203.215 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 November 2009

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although there were valid reasons to delete, the overwhelming consensus here was clearly keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEO violation. While there are a number of sources for Holocaust Denial and AIDS Denialism there are precious few sources discussing Denialism as a standalone concept. The article has been and remains a loose collection of sources dealing with specific non-overlapping subjects which have been WP:SYNTH'ed together by WP:OR. The state of the article after the last no-consensus by very editors has not seemed to have improved, if anything the WP:SYNTH has gotten worse. As we already have articles on Holocaust Denial and AIDS Denialism as well as descriptive articles on Propaganda, Artificial controversy and methods of Disinformation I fail to see the need for maintaining this article on a neologism supported by synthesis of original research. - Unomi 05:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Article is not about a neologism; it is about an underlying concept, which is widely recognised. It just so happens that the best article title is a relatively new term. Hesperian 06:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources which back up your contention. Unomi (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that 'google hits' do not in anyway confer notability or establish WP:V. What we need are good sources that cover 'Denialism' as a standalone concept, so that editors do not have to resort to WP:SYNTH. When taking part in this discussion please do so from wikipedia policy and reliable sources. Unomi (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Core concept is documented in WP:RS (see for example Fassin(2007) p115, which discusses 'denialism' as a general concept, not just 'AIDS denialism') and article is more than a WP:DICT definition, so meets WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. Whilst articles of this type do create problems for demarcating what is WP:Synthesis versus what is legitimate paraphrasing ('deny'→'denial'→'denialist'→'denialism'), I think there is sufficient non-WP:SYNTH material to meet WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fassin states the vague notion of "denialism", refers to denialism as disqualifying. States that denialism is usually reserved for the most morally sanctioned forms of denial, in particular those that concern genocide. The word denialism is used in his book a total of 4 (four) times, according to books.google.com. Note also that as far as he is concerned it is prescriptive and polemic. In fact from what I have read he seems very much to state that 'denial' is an inadequate descriptor, and is in favor of more nuanced language. Unomi (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting out of context (your excerpts in italics):
Considering this past experience, which combines the ordinariness of colonial occupation with the exceptionality of the apartheid regime whose details are only now being revealed in the public space, enables us to account for the government's statements and policies much more effectively than does the vague notion of "denialism" commonly used describe it.
— page XIX

Fassin goes on to state:

Both dimensions ['Prescriptive' & 'Polemic'] become evident in the fact that people are continually slipping from "denial" (an empirical observation that reality and truth are being denied) to "denialism" (an ideological position whereby one systematically reacts by refusing reality and the truth. This is a shift that is all the more significant, as denialism is usually reserved for the most morally sanctioned forms of denial, in particular those that concern genocide. In the case of South Africa, the accusation of "denialism" applied to doubts expressed on the etiology of AIDS goes hand in hand with accusations of "genocide," referring to the delays in implementing prophylaxis and therapy with antiretroviral drugs. The government's opponents have constantly repeated this accusation, turning these historically significant and deeply disqualifying words — denialism and genocide — into commonplaces.
— page 115

Fassin is not stating that "denialism" is per se a "vague notion", only vague in a single context. He clearly believes that the correct use of "denialism" is as a "deeply disqualifying word". He equally believes that it has a meaning, as he himself defines one for it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the full quotes, I believe you have also covered the entire breadth of Fassins use of the word. This still does not change the fact that Fassins book is in fact not about 'denialism' it is about AIDS politics in SA, denialism seems to be used 4 times in it and while there is indeed a sentence from which you derive a definition(?) it is far from clear that this is enough per WP:NEO, in fact per WP:NEO it is not. Unomi (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like how you refrain from mentioning that this is again in reference to HIV and AIDS, the title of the book being "When bodies remember: experiences and politics of AIDS in South Africa." Can anyone demonstrate a non pejorative use for this word outside of the word of HIV and AIDS? Perhaps a reference to a... Oh, what was that thing we had in school to look up words? OH YEAH! A dictionary! Neuromancer (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much WP:SYNTH. Until there's a book and/or multiple-news articles connecting all these things, it doesn't belong on wikipedia per WP:OR. Also this article seems written by lovers of anti-WP:Fringe. In this sense, it's far too much wikipedia WP:POV#Local bias. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is this book on the subject by Michael Specter. The book was reviewed and discussed in the NYT here. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this 2007 article in St. Louis Journalism Review. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also this 2007 article and this 2009 article in Spiked which put forward critical views of the use of this term. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the kinds of sources that the article should probably be based on. They appear to be descriptive and what one would expect. But the article is a perspective piece that is neither based on such sources nor does it share their distance from the subject. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers, a good editor went about things in the right way, but this is how his edits were treated (None of these sources would write anything that could support a section on "Illegitimate methodology and tactics". It's a silly article.) The article's creators/watchers have no intention of incorpating such sources or removing material that don't have such sources. Why save it? Or how can it be saved? --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers, these sources would agree that this article and most of its !vote-Keep proponents are what Karl Popper calls a conspiracy theory of ignorance (see comment below for more details). For example, the !vote keep by 2/0 justifies that !vote based on book that one of your linked sources makes out to be junk unfit as a WP:RS. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If sources disagree, we describe the basis of their disagreement. However, I note that despite me providing both the book and "multiple-news articles connecting all these things" that you asked for, you haven't changed your vote, which is disappointing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely some great work. TimVickers, you're awesome and it would be a pleasure to work with you, but if one reads below many of the editors who have and will contribute to this article reject the sources that you are linking to. I hardly think any objective contributor would call Spiked (magazine) a blog or that an obvious ad hominem attack no matter who published it would amount to legitimate source, but that is what the pro-denialist camp would have us believe. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Wikipedia:TIGERS an interesting essay, and quite appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there are many smart people here who argee that the current article is WP:SYNTH, calling this other group who deny this a "pro-denialist camp" seems rather objective. In turn, read the article (not an essay, which is merely opinion) on Political correctness. If I get banned from wikipedia for holding on to objective reality, it would be a badge of honor.--Firefly322 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHOLESALE DELETE Aside from the fact that this word does not exist in any language, let alone English, this is a blatant attempt to legitimize a whimsical word used exclusively in relation to HIV and AIDS (Occasionally in reference to the Holocaust). WP:SYNTH WP:Fringe WP:POV original research neologism Neuromancer (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: … ummm … what exactly is a "wholesale delet[ion]"? Does it mean 'delete this article and any article that links to it'? WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms does not impose a per se prohibition on articles on neologisms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply It's a "semi clandestine" debate between editors. Similar to Duh-l33t, Snowball Delete, or Inoculate with Deletion Virus. Neuromancer (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the section of WP:NEO which reads: Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.. Surely Fassins book on AIDS politics in South Africa does not constitute a book about denialism as a standalone concept, as it seems to contain the word no more than 4 times. Unomi (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fassin(2007) p115 contains discussion of the term (i.e. material "about the term"), not mere "use [of] the term". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable, with plenty of WP:RS that show this is notable and not synth, such as this New Humanist article, mainly about AIDS denialism but also other forms). Verbal chat 07:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So by this logic Verbal, are you an English Denialist? The title of this article is "How to spot an AIDS denialist." Can you find a reliable source NOT referencing HIV and AIDS? "Denialism" is a pejorative term used in reference to HIV and AIDS only. Here's an article you on how fun it is to create new words [62]. It might be of interest to you, and it's from a Wiki, so it must be a reliable source. Neuromancer (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source covers several forms, and calls them denialsim. I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your AIDS/HIV POV. It is reliable, and shows that the connection is not synth.
AIDS denialism is one of several incarnations of denialism. All denialism is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none.
Verbal chat 07:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try to keep musings on the beliefs and motives of others out of this discussion please. Fact remains that WP:NEO has rather clear wording regarding this matter. Only books and papers about a certain neologism is considered an WP:RS in this context, not books or papers which might use the word. As it happens we have the much more apt and descriptive Artificial controversy which covers what they seem to identify 'denialism' as. Unomi (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please give more sources which are about denialism? As it is clearly notable this should not prove too difficult. Unomi (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is about denialism, and uses AIDS as an example. Verbal chat 08:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you saying that the article named how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist replete with an aids denialist hall of shame is actually about denialism as a standalone concept?.Unomi (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it also covers the general term and gives this as an example. It has significant coverage of the term "denialism". It is clearly notable, thousands of RS and multiple notable examples. Verbal chat 10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of RS and multiple notable examples.. Please, don't hold back, surely you have something better than how to spot an aids denialist. Please note that this source also inconsistently uses 'Denialism' (as distinct from 'AIDS Denialism) : Denialists also exploit what is not known about how HIV causes AIDS to suggest that HIV may not cause AIDS at all. , Denialists now demand that the virus be isolated in “pure form”, that is uncontaminated by proteins. . And note that the definition of Denialism which it gives is verbatim the definition of Artificial controversy. Unomi (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources on the general concept, as well as specific instances (AIDS, holocaust, etc). Needs work, no doubt - but deleting it is not the answer. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SYNTH is not a deletion reason, not here anyway. Fix the problems. This is a desirable subject for an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is WP:Synth a reason for deletion everywhere else, but not here? Neuromancer (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is almost never a reason for deletion. The synthesis here does not seem so great. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the article cannot exist without synth, as there are no sources which are about denialism as a standalone concept. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. With surprise I see that there is no entry in oed.com or www.m-w.com. However, I would expect wikipedia to have an entry, even if just a stub. The term is in such widespread usage that it is not a neologism by wiktionary's standards, and there is an entry there - wikt:denialism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on wiktionary was created a few months after the last afd discussion, wiktionary also has looser inclusion criteria than wikipedia does. Please note that wiktionary also maintains an entries on Islamonazism and Coulterism etc. From WP:NEO As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. I put it to you that this is one of those cases. Unomi (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. There are a lot of sources that are just blogs, and we don't like articles based on blogs by non-notable people. However, seeing as the term is so familiar to my ear, and it is not new, I would like to see the article stay, and improve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Verbal and Snalwibma, there are reliable sources to support this article. While the concept is certainly best illustrated by long-standing holocaust and (especially) AIDS denialism, these and other instances (cf. deniers of climate change, creationists, the tobacco industry) are united in mindset and the use of common tactics. That said, Unomi's point about artificial controversy is a fair one — there is quite a bit of overlap (although I note that "denialism" appears in ~20 publications in ISI WoK, while "artificial controversy" only occurs in 1). Also, I notice that the current version of the article contains a number of citation-related tags — fixing these seems an obvious way forwards. --PLUMBAGO 09:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much that there are no sources which use 'denialism' it is that there are no sources which 'cover' denialism, this means it falls short of WP:NEO: If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. I find that Artificial controversy is preferential and seems to cover the same domain. Let me reiterate, there seem to be No sources which are about denialism as a standalone concept. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You keep repeating that point. No need to say it more than once, I suggest! I agree that most of the sources are concerned with only one instance/flavour of denialism, but you don't have to look very far in the references given in the article to find some that treat the general concept. As one example I offer this. From this I conclude that although there is a danger of WP:SYNTH, the article does not depend on it for its existence, and should be kept. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, you have cited an HIV article. Neuromancer (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nonsense! Look at that article: "My theme touches on two momentous issues ... the Holocaust ... the Aids pandemic ... Each in different ways seems emblematic of the past century's terrible legacy of human vulnerability and failing ... Yet both these facts are denied ..." SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HIV and the Holocaust. So a fringe writer, who obviously has ties to the HIV debate, used it in an article to describe the Holocaust as well as HIV. However, I haven't seen a film, or a medical paper, or an actual debate regarding the Holocaust. Talk about fringe. Can you find the word in an English dictionary? Neuromancer (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see: argument by moving the goalposts! Unomi several times said that no source treats the general concept, so I provided one (which is already in the article) - and now I have to find a film, a medical paper, or the term in a dictionary? I came here by accident, and was interested enough in the topic to try and help the debate by assessing the case for myself. I came to a conclusion, supported by evidence, and I stated that conclusion and cited some of the evidence. What's the problem? Why so defensive? What particular axe is being ground here? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that this source does in fact not reliably treat the general concept. Please see my comment further down on how the term 'Denialist' is used inconsistently and would force us to attribute to all denialists traits which are untenable. Only by cherry picking sentences with characteristics we a priori confer to 'denialists' can we use it to support our preconceived 'definition'. This is precisely the problem we get into when we don't have (per WP:NEO) reliable sources. Unomi (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is Edwin Cameron a "fringe writer"? Edwin Cameron is a judge of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal, and the article cited is an edited version of a lecture given at the Harvard Law School. Everything I can find about him suggests to me that he is a serious, reliable, mainstream figure. And he "obviously has ties to the HIV debate"! Well, yes, someone writing about AIDS is likely to be connected to the subject. Likewise in an article about nuclear energy we can expect citations to works by people with connections to nuclear energy research. Really, the fact that the "delete" people have to resort to this kind of comment to support their position does not lend much credibility to their case. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not let yourself be distracted from arguing from wikipedia policy. Personally I do not consider him fringe, but nor do I accept his speech to be an RS per the criteria of WP:NEO, the text itself uses 'Denialism' very loosely and would force us to cherry pick and synthesize traits to support a preconceived understanding of 'Denialism'. Unomi (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Consensus with Unomi~~ - I agree completely. Neuromancer (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop giving multiple !votes (I have struck). You are asking for a source that discusses denialism, but without mentioning notable examples? That is too much, and not appropriate. Verbal chat 10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't give a multiple vote. It was indented, and small. Neuromancer (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the arguments for deletion are spurious. (1) We have continually been given references to WP:SYNTH, but nowhere are we clearly told what has been synthesised, either in this discussion or in the article's talk page. At a guess I should say that we are supposed to infer that AIDS denialism , Holocaust denialism etc are separate, and have been arbitrarily lumped together. However, the concept of denialism (refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality) is exactly the same in each case, and is applied to different examples. WP:SYNTH refers to combining elements of different sources together to reach a conclusion which is not given in any of the sources: if those claiming WP:SYNTH think this has been done then they should be able to say exactly what conclusion has been falsely reached in this way, but nowhere have they done so. To take content from sources which refer to denialism in connection with AIDS together with sources which refer to denialism in connection with the "holocaust" is not WP:SYNTH unless doing so reaches some conclusion not found in either group of sources, such as that anyone who denies AIDS is also a holocaust denier. AS long as no such unwarranted conclusions are drawn there is nothing wrong with combining such sources, any more than in an article about trees one cannot refer to both sources on oaks and sources on sycamores. (2) We have the claim that "this word does not exist". This line of argument has been used much more on the article's talk page. The word does exist, and is used in numerous books and other works. The claim that the word does not exist seems to be based on its absence from certain dictionaries. However, the view that a word exists only if it is listed in a dictionary, although popular, is untenable. Lexicographers put words in dictionaries because they are used, and there is always a time lag between the word's coming into use and its being recorded. This issue is discussed at much greater length on the article's talk page. Curiously, the person who above says the word "does not exist" goes on in the same sentence to refer to it as a "word used exclusively in relation to HIV and AIDS (Occasionally in reference to the Holocaust)", thereby acknowledging that it is a word, and is used. The fact that the word is used only in limited contexts does not disqualify it for coverage: the word "oak" is used only in reference to one genus of trees, but that does not stop us from having an article on it. Besides, there are other uses of the term, even if less common, as has been pointed out above. (3) We are told that we need "sources ... about the term—not books and papers that use the term". No, we need sources about the concept to which the term refers: that is not the same as sources about the term. The article on Oak gives references to sources about oaks, not to sources about the word "oak". The quotation "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" taken from Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is poorly worded: in general we do not have articles about terms (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), we have articles about the concepts referred to by the terms. That wording was introduced by User:cmh after he had suggested it on Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms, but nobody else commented on it. In any case, whether the above argument is accepted or not, there are sources about denialism, rather than about particular examples of denialism; for example judge Edwin Cameron's Edward A Smith Annual Lecture at Harvard Law School "The dead hand of denialism"; an edited version online has been linked above, but here it is again: [63]. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article synthesizes characteristics attributed to 'Holocaust Denialism' and 'AIDS Denialism' and from that by original research reaches a definition of 'Denialism'. The very source you submit highlights the problem with this by the paragraph: "Denialists assert that the "hypothesis" that Aids is caused by a sexually transmitted virus is unproven and irresponsible. Aids in North America and Western European they attribute to "the long-term consumption of recreational drugs" and to the widespread use of drugs as sexual stimulants by homosexual men and, more recently, to the administration of anti-retroviral drugs that doctors wrongly prescribe for Aids." and Denialists seek to suggest that the inability to achieve historical or epidemiological exactitude renders the Holocaust and Aids themselves imaginary.. Note that the author does not even properly qualify 'Denialists' in this case as 'AIDS Denialists' but maintains this as an attribute of all Denialists, I realize that this is a somewhat specious line of argument as this is unlikely to be what the author meant, but we are not mind readers and we have to rely on high quality sources which do not make such egregious errors, else we fall in the trap of Cherry-picking. Your example of Oak has it the wrong way around, it would be more apt to say that sources on say Oak trees and Redwood trees would be an insufficient basis from which to synthesize an article on Trees. That there exist reliable sources on oak trees from which to build an article has nothing to do with the lack of reliable sources on which to build an article on denialism. Unomi (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to draw your attention to Holocaust denial. Nowhere in the article does it mention denialism or denialist. Neuromancer (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the sources given, including the New Humanist article and Cameron's speech, show significant coverage of denialism as a concept (coverage of it as a word is irrelevant, as James notes above) which goes far enough beyond individual examples to establish it as a general topic worthy of its own article. Given that the topic is notable one can ask what the best title is: again, I think enough sources use the word 'denialism' that we can treat it as a 'real word' and suitable title regardless of its presence or otherwise in dictionaries. I also agree with James that the line from Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is poorly worded and should probably be altered. Having re-read the guideline I still feel this article passes it in spirit if not necessarily in its current wording; none of the "reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate" seem to apply, for instance. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the section regarding reasons it states If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. And the section regarding reliable sources states : To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.). Please note that per the speech we need to attribute all denialists with Denialists seek to suggest that the inability to achieve historical or epidemiological exactitude renders the Holocaust and Aids themselves imaginary., not some, not a subset, per Cameron this is the breadth of denialists as he covers it, to fail doing that, while taking out sentences which appear more general, yet no less specific would be Cherry picking and Synthesizing. The same goes with most if not all of the sources that we have seen so far. Fassins 1 line might be the exeption. Unomi (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term exists, and there are sources for it. Albmont (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what sources are you referring to? Unomi (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid general concept. Sources have been shown above. It is not at this point even remotely a neologism. Holocaust denialism is the best known example, but hardly the only one. AIDS denialism ids also well-known, and on these examples, there are a great many others. [64] remains an adequate source. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above, Camerons speech, which you see as an adequate source has major problems. It can only be seen as a source if you willfully cherry-pick his statements based on a preconception of what 'Denialism' should be. If we say: For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They therefore set out to render them untrue. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence. is adequate for inclusion, why not: Denialists assert that the "hypothesis" that Aids is caused by a sexually transmitted virus is unproven and irresponsible. or Denialists seek to suggest that the inability to achieve historical or epidemiological exactitude renders the Holocaust and Aids themselves imaginary. or even stronger Yet in one of his rare references to Aids earlier this year, he described it as a disease "of poverty and underdevelopment" - echoing one of the key dogmas of denialism. As these sentences also cover the breadth of what Cameron seemed to intend by 'Denialists'. The only way to get around this is by cherry picking and synthesis. This is why WP:NEO demands a source which treats the term by itself, not merely uses it in its text; such extrapolation of meaning and synthesis with extrapolation of other texts is, thankfully, denied us by the policies we abide by. Unomi (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A commonly known concept, even where the word may not be used, so this article is legitimate for documenting how the word is used, and for how the concept exists in society. This AfD might even be seen as an example directed at the word itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a commonly known concept, and the proper way to denote it is with Artificial controversy not some silly neologism for the sake of saving syllables. I agree that this afd seems an exercise in Policy Denialism by those that will not accept that there exist no good sources for it yet. As WP:NEO says: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.. Unomi (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How funny! The general motivation behind all the Keep !votes so far is what Karl Popper would label a "conspiracy theory" concern with "sources of ignorance." In Popper's book Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge the introduction is a January 20, 1960 address by Popper before the British Academy. Its title is "On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance" and here's a quote (p.3):

“

I told [my friend] that I hoped to direct attention, through the phrasing of this title, to a number of historically important although unrecorded philosophical doctrines and among them, especially, to a conspiracy theory of ignorance [italics Popper's] which interprets ignorance not as a mere lack of knowledge but as the work of some mischievous power, the source of impure and evil influences which pervert and poison our minds and instil in us the habit of resistance to knowledge. - Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, page 3.

”

--Firefly322 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er... what? That doesn't make any sense in context to this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it makes perfect sense. This article on Denialism clearly "interprets ignorance not as a mere lack of knowledge but as the work of some mischievous power, the source of impure and evil influences." It makes wikipedia look stupid, not smart as many of the !vote keeps no doubt intend. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say that This article on Denialism clearly "interprets ignorance ...", but it is not clear to me that it does anything of the sort. Can you explain how and why the article does this? Simply to state that it does so with no justification is not helpful at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources have been given to show this is a notable concept. Claiming that "denialism" is a non-word is silly on its face, given the prevalence of reports describing Holocaust denial and AIDS denial; further it seems that the entire basis for deleting is a very narrow reading of WP:NEO. This isn't a whole new word, or even a new use of the word, so NEO isn't relevant here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is a new word, that is why it does not exist in any dictionaries. The use of Holocaust Denial has since been dumbed down and reified into Holocaust Denialism and the same goes with AIDS Denial this does not all of a sudden mean that 'Denialism' is a valid word by itself. In fact, sources point to that the concept that you seem to understand 'Denialism' to be is in fact Artificial controversy. Perhaps you would care to provide sources which support your assertion of it being a valid and described concept? Unomi (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Repetition does not an argument make. Your entire technique has been to repeat WP:NEO to any point brought up in this debate. Also it is not necessary to reply to every !vote in this debate; in fact, it's considered rather excessive. Finally, the sources in the article are sufficient. I get the feeling no source would be truly sufficient for you at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This perhaps shows the error of relying on your feelings rather than an honest and thorough assessment of reality as it is made available to you. Please note that 8 hours before you relied on your feelings to write the above, I put myself down as weak keep per the very commendable research embarked on by Tim Vickers. The issue here is that the efforts made to spell out which sources were compelling enough for the keep !votes were not in any way compelling to any reasoned(ymmv) reading of current wikipedia policy. As for entering into discussion with editors taking part in this, how else would I be able to gain insight into how they came to their decision? Asking questions and presenting how our apprehension of reality differs is, imo, one of the more effective ways of learning, and indeed, achieving consensus. I brought the article here precisely because I felt it to be a WP:NEO violation, it should come as no great surprise that I would like to be convinced that those who take part in the discussion have a good case for it not being so. Just stating 'thousands of RS' etc does not a case make. Unomi (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a pejorative, POV word, which means that per WP:YESPOV we ought to include a widespread discussion of its usage. And, as plenty of others have noted, there are plenty of RS for this article as it stands now. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What RS are you referring to? Really, name 1. Unomi (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not individual editors agree with every use of the word to label underlying concepts is irrelevant. More than sufficient numbers of RS to keep. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the new source from Tim Vickers below, there have been not a single RS which meets the criteria of WP:NEO. That is the whole point of this afd. Unomi (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per this article in The European Journal of Public Health that describes and discusses denialism as a general concept. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does look very promising, would you mind quoting their definition of it? Unomi (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read a copy of the article here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is with some surprise that I see that the author credits and adopts the denialism.com definition. If it is good enough for The European Journal of Public Health then who am I to argue against it. I will note though that it is still excruciatingly close to the definition of Artificial controversy Unomi (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per Tim Vickers source. Unomi (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, the source was in the article already, so I'm guessing that's why no-one thought to mention it before now.

--PLUMBAGO 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could be the reason why it wasn't brought up. Unomi (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly this is a book article with a WP:NEO and some WP:SYNTH wrapped around it that could with being cut back to just being a book article? Voodoo science suffers from that same problem. Of course, if that was done there would then be the problem of establishing notability for the book. Artw (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm surprised I haven't seen more weak votes on this AfD. There are some potentially promising articles on this, this article being the main one. However, as no one has elaborated on the context of any of them, and as we would require more than one non-trivial article to support notability I cannot vote keep. This article is currently falling foul of WP:NEO as it is a word most commonly used in conjunction with phenomenon like AIDS and the Holocaust. Those who are voting keep make a good point, but there isn't enough evidence yet to support their position. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this book on the subject by Michael Specter. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is an excerpt from that book. (offtopic) Anyone see the irony regarding the organic agriculture in Africa paragraph? Unomi (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the article now it is well-referenced and shows clear examples of the word in use moving it out of the WP:NEO category. Good work! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ though I could see that turning to keep if the WP:SYNTH issues were addressed (simply piling on examples does not do this - we need so see why these things are linked) and the horrible neologism of a name were changed to something actually descriptive. Artw (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unomi asked me to contribute to the discussion, probably because of my participation in the previous AfD. In that AfD, I offered a "weak delete" opinion. That was in March, 2007 and I was basing my opinion on this version of the article. The article is much more mature now and certainly worth keeping. I admit to a bit of amusement at the irony of denying the notability of the term as a specifically described and identifiable position. As to the WP:NEO charge, I personally know of the term being used as far back as 1980 or '81. While my personal knowledge is hardly WP:RS or WP:V, I find it difficult to call a word at least 25 years old a neologism. Pigman☿/talk 18:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per User:Artw. This articles also a bit too POV Nicholas Tan (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is "a bit too POV" then that is a reason for editing it to cover other POVs, not a reason for deletion. Also, in what way is it too POV? I don't see that it is, and to simply assert it without saying why is not helpful.

Keep. Concept is clearly defined in the article, which is reliably sourced; the term has been in use for many years so it seems nonsensical to call it a neologism. The synthesis argument is invalid; there are entire books about the concept (cf. Specter, Michael (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives). The first AfD nomination of this article smacked of POV politics and, to be honest, this nomination does as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here is another article describing the phenomenon from the Fortean Times. --GirasoleDE (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The word seems to be coming into widespread use. In fact, I think it would make a decent project for the political scientist. So many people using it for so many things... I wonder if there's any order to it? ;) From a psychologist's perspective, I wonder what could be done about it? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep but rename to denial movements to more accurately describe the article and avoid WP:NEO issues. New links provided in talk page, combined with existing links, and a little trimming would would easily alleviate WP:SYNTH problems. Artw (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that the WP:FTN will have to relinquish it's WP:OWNership of the article. This article has real issues, buring your heads in the sand will not fix them, and you should listen to the input of other editors. Artw (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This keep is predicated on issues with the article actually being addressed in article. There appears to be an amount of ostrich like behaviour going there, so I may revert back to my earlier weak delete. Artw (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what Verbal said. Crafty (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a soapy coatrack - guilt by association, Godwin's law - it's got the works. And it is directly contrary to the guidance of WP:NEO, "For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them.". I also endorse the points made by others above that it is improper synthesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course adding –ism to a word sometimes implies a belief system or political movement, but this is clearly not the case with "denialism", so the point is totally irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only possible content of this article, no matter how well sourced, is a dictionary definition (see WP:NOTADICTIONARY) and then a series of instances of people, organisations, and viewpoints being accused of denialism, which has no inherent encyclopedic value and fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. Denialism isn't a coherent philosophy, movement, or method of logic and as such it's not possible for there to be analysis of it that rises above the level of POV accusations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure construct of similar named items, might as well call it List of things termed Denialism because that's what this article is, and we can have List of things termed Stupid, List of things termed Brilliant and anything else we'd like, this is the sort of article that brings WP into disrepute, and if this is kept, the keepers' point of view is another denialism to be listed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is much more than just a list. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, let me confess that the current article is much better than I remember when I looked at it a few years ago. That said, there is still a fundamental WP:NEO issue here coupled to a subtle bit of synthesis. The modern concept of "denialism" is a neologism. Like many neologisms it has older roots in the history of Holocaust denial, which spread to aboriginal denial, then AIDS denial, climate change denial, etc. The scope of things that "denial" gets tacked on to has expanded rapidly in just the last 15 years (since AIDS denial became common), and with it there has grown an emerging new concept of "denialism". But the core issue is that the terms themselves are in flux. Gather ten experts and ask them what "denialism" is, and I'm sure you get 10 different answers with varying ranges and scopes. That's the core of the neologism problem. "Denialism" itself is a fuzzy concept that isn't easily pinned down and is entirely absent from nearly all dictionaries. The article, as currently constructed, tries to pin it down, and that's the origin of the Synth problem. The editors select and interpret sources to promote a particular interpretation of what "denialism" is. Yes, they can find people to agree with them, but it fails to consider other points of view that would disagree about what "denialism" means. For example, go back 15 years when the number of accepted "X denial" concepts was much narrower and the historical scope of these terms would seem considerably different. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I think this is a case where Wikipedia is being used to shape the meaning of "denialism" rather than merely document its meaning, which isn't appropriate for a reference work. Given that, I feel it is premature for Wikipedia to have an article on "denialism", and we are better off without it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, since as you say, if you gathered ten experts and asked them what "denialism" is, none of them would say "I've never heard of the term". Even if they gave ten slightly different definitions, they would all attempt to define it. A similar situation to asking ten philosophers to define "free will" or "personhood", which are equally notable but contentious topics. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People may disagree on the specific meaning, but the range of concepts attached to free will has changed little in centuries. It's a fuzzy concept but a persistent one (even appears in the dictionary). By contrast, the frequency of use and meanings attached to "denialism" have changed considerably even in just the last five years. It's fuzzy and in flux, which makes for a poor article topic. Dragons flight (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a little unfair. Denialism itself hasn't changed its meaning it's just that what it's tacked onto changes frequently. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. Holocaust denial was associated with genocide and worst human atrocities. If you look at the history, the AIDS activists who coined the "AIDS denial" campaign consciously chose that phrase to draw parallels with the Holocaust and tap into its connotations with genocide. (I.e., they wanted to equate denying the truth about AIDS with mass murder, which arguably it was.) At that time, "denialism" was closely linked with genocide and murder. However, a side effect of the activism against "AIDS denial" was that the terms came to be seen as being about denying truth and science more so than genocide and murder. The connotation around denialism shifted. Then other people picked up "denial" for climate change and similar things and it became even more about science. Many young people have no appreciation for the way language changes around them, but "denialism" has definitely been in flux. Go back 30 years and calling someone "a denier" was the height of slander because it was closely tied to genocide and death, but that's not true anymore. Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A major book about (and titled) Denialism was released less than a week ago, so I don't see how a useful decision can be reached until people have had a chance to obtain the book and update the article accordingly. Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on a concept should not need significant updates just because one new book comes along. That you think it should be is further evidence that we are talking about a fuzzy, neologistic concept. If someone wants to write an article on the book, more power to them, but it won't change my opinion about the undesirability of having an article on the concept. Dragons flight (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a coherent movement, but it is a well-defined sociological phenomenon. The use of the term with the same meaning in several contexts by disparate groups refutes WP:NEO, and the sourcing takes care of the rest. The general unity of the several claims and tactics used by denialists, including moving the goalposts, reversing the burden of proof, teach the controversy, reliance on the Galileo Gambit and similar fallacies, citing weak, biased, or out of date evidence to say that the jury is not yet in, projective assignment of motivation, and lionizing "experts" based more on conclusions than validity of evidence, unify this as a proper encyclopedic topic. Notable examples of the concept, such as AIDS denialism, Holocaust denial, Climate change denial, &c. should of course be treated. A few more example sources covering denialism (or "trees" in the analogy above): ISBN 9780387794754 Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy By Seth C. Kalichman, Nicoli Nattrass (page 9 defines denialism in general); Climate: Game Over by Donald Kennedy; the EJPH article mentioned above really does bear repeating. If the title is a problem, that can be solved at Talk:Denialism. Some discussion of use as a rhetorical technique might be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this source (i.e., Spiked (magazine)), Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy is unfit as a WP:RS. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Kalichman [author of Denying AIDS] may not be able to spell ad hominem (see his preface, p.xv), but he certainly indulges in shameful personal invective against Duesberg. To clinch his case against the ‘denialists’, Kalichman notes that Duesberg is of German origin, and indeed that ‘his father served in the German army during World War Two’ (like every other German citizen eligible for conscription). Furthermore he discloses that Duesberg ‘spends his summers in Germany’ and that some of his campaign supporters are also German. Kalichman warns that Duesberg ‘may evoke a sort of nationalist sentimental loyalty among some fellow countrymen’.

”

“

The use of the concept of ‘denialism’ as a cudgel with which to beat anybody who questions the Holocaust or global warming has become familiar (1). It is used by people like social psychologist Seth Kalichman, author of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience and Human Tragedy, who seem incapable of winning a rational argument.

”

With a source written by an author "who seem[s] incapable of winning a rational argument", article will be WP:POV junk. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue is not whether we agree with the way the concept of "denialism" is used or misused by various writers, but whether it exists as a concept notable enough to merit a WP article. The more of these "unreliable" sources you quote, the stronger the case for retaining the article! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please be mindful of WP:BLP - it applies here as well as on articles, and includes quotes from unreliable sources. Verbal chat 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your judgement of what is and is not a WP:RS in regards to this article would appear to be deplorable. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark these words: this article in its present form will bring shame to wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So improve the article - but that is not the point of this discussion, which is concerned with whether the topic merits an article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denying AIDS was published by Springer, which is good enough for WP:N and the discussion here. If anyone wants to go blog-delving for prominent scholars writing in their field of expertise, there is plenty of no, you are a denialist backsplash from 9/11 conspiracy theorists and global warming denialists and antivaccinationists etc. Writing off the entirety of someone's views on a topic is about as effective as invoking Godwin for convincing the person themselves, but people call each other denialists so we should cover what they mean (as a function of time and society) and why. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYNTH is as valid a reason as any to delete the article - this should be a category. If it doesn't, and can't meet guidelines like SYNTH in its current form, it should be scrapped. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is used in a number of contexts, and similarities between different kinds of denialism are pointed out (or alleged) fairly regularly. An article like this will always have problems, but it's significantly better than when I last looked, and the best response is to improve it further.JQ (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But not because I believe that the concept has proven itself valid from an NPOV to be presented as an established "ism."

What exactly does "denialim" refer to? A psychological phenomenon? A sociological phenomenon? A legal phenomenon? A political phenomenon? A scientific phenomenon? And where is the evidence of its discrete phenomenological existence that has been subject to any kind of academic rigor by psychologists, sociologists, legal professors, political scientists, or regular scientists?

But to delete the article wholesale would be a mistake IMHCO, in that the term occurs as a pejorative in polemical discourse in defense of perceived orthodoxy by people of note such as Edwin Cameron.

The article on the term cult here does a fairly good job of threading this kind of needle. It begins, "Cult pejoratively refers to a religious group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister."

I had this kind of treatment in mind, back when I attempted an edit or two, but at the time it seemed like I was running the risk of a revert war with editors who were true believers in the concept as an "ism." Which is the kind of thing I have exactly ZERO time for. ô¿ô 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in spirit with what is being said. I'm not calling for a salting of the term denialism, banning it from wikipedia. The article as is, is WP:SYNTH and doesn't recognize that the term denialism is an almost purely pejorative term that is being pushed by WP:TIGERS. However politically correct their words may be, their actions here and ultimate article content is that of WP:POV WP:TIGERS. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that many of the !vote keeps are just expressions of naivety. Others may just want to keep the term. And to those, what I have written may indeed seem bizarre and unfair (I don't quite see unfairness here, but I am admittedly using broad strokes in my descriptions of the situations). ( There are no doubt finer lines that can be drawn here and more careful language could be used to tease out what exactly is being argued for and against and by whom.) Nevertheless, in this case, the article and some of its potential sources are agressively pejorative. In five-seven days of discussion (as long as an AFD is open), that fact, no matter how nobel the intentions of denying it may be, should not be lost. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than 600 news results, and over 300 book results, use the word. Have you never heard of someone being "in denial" or "in a state of denial"? "Denialism," is the state of being in denial about something. Its a very common psychological state. Far less common than common sense of course, but still very easy to find people suffering from everywhere. Dream Focus 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a cursory scan of the sources shows that there's been at least one entire book written on the subject [65], as well as plenty of additional sourcing. It's not synthesis if someone else does the synthesis, and that's quite clearly been done here. If there are synthesis problems, by all means fix them, but the subject itself seems to have plenty of sourcing behind it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Look, NPR reads AfD! - BalthCat (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Verbal. --King Öomie 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AIDS denialism and Holocaust denialism should be a clue that the core connecting philosophy could be reasonably turned into a good article. There also Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives and countless articles including "Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts" and "Climate Change Mythconceptions: Some Incorrect, Irrelevant and Misleading Arguments Made by Climate Change Denialists"; plus countless articles including NPR's "Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'". The book author can be quoted eloquently from Denialism: Are We Anti-Science, or Are We Inconsistent?, an interview of the author. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This seems to be wide spread enough a topic, that wikipedia should have an article pertaining to this subject. How in depth the article should be, is a completely different discussion. However, if it becomes to large in the future or becomes a forum for unpublished theoretical thought then deletion should be revisited. Outback the koala (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references cannot be considered reliable or unbiased on the subject of "denialism". They presume that disagreeing with certain causes that the author embraces represent an irrational "denialism" rather than reasoned counter-arguments. In some cases there is only one topic, in others there are a set of topics. But the sources are using controversial examples to push their points of view. When they do mentioned well-established events that are the subject denial, it is merely to prop up their other cause to suggest, for example, that people who disagree with the causes or scope of global warming are "denialists" in the same sense as people who deny the moon landing or the Holocaust. If we can find a good set of sources that are not dependent on controversial issues, then we should consider keeping the article. Otherwise it needs to be deleted as it is simply a tool of propaganda pushers. Readin (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Readin says that the references "cannot be considered reliable or unbiased" because they use the word "denialism" in the cause of a particular point of view. Even if this is true, it is not a reason fro deleting the article. The concept exists, and is widely used, and therefore we should report the fact: whether we like or dislike the way the concept is used is not a reason for not mentioning it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the Wikipedia article says "The term "climate change denialists" has also been applied to those who refuse to accept that climate change is occurring.[8][9][10][11] Several motivations for denial have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or simply as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas.[12][13]" The text has "climate change" while the sources say "global warming". Presumably this is because recent weather, being rather cool, has made "global warming" less popular and "climate change" the new term. The exact nature of this change remains open to question. Yet the sources overwhelming seek to portray anyone who doubted "global warming" as deniers of an indisputable truth. How can these sources be considered reliable and unbiased? Readin (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whether those sources are reliable on the subject of global warming/climate change is irrelevant. They are clearly good evidence concerning the existence and usage of the term denialism, and that is all that matters here! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's been clearly demonstrated, through various sources, that this is a notable word and concept. It is a 'neologism' in the sense that it's a word that was coined relatively recently, but that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it - this concept has become widely recognised pretty quickly. One can argue that the article is not perfectly neutral, and that it might contain elements of original research, but I don't think you can argue that it shouldn't exist at all. Robofish (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The several sources listed in this AfD should be reinserted or more clearly highlighted within the article. The WP:SYNTH claims seem perjures or somewhat vindictive rather than substantive. The article is far, far from feature quality, but considerably better than many others here. It could be improved, but it fills an apparent niche that covers the more general topic of denialism. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While about 20% of the editors expressing opinion here are for "delete" (9/45 by my count) the proportion of text arguing for "delete" is much higher - at a guess about 40%. This is largely because of a couple of editors (particularly, but not only, Unomi) repeating the same arguments over and over again, continually saying "WP:NEO" and "there are no sources", apparently oblivious of the sources which have been given and the answers given to WP:NEO, that is to say playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I should say that this is a first class example of denialism, and an excellent illustration that the concept does exist. What a pity that this Wikipedia discussion is not a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed ironic: denial of denialism. Call it metadenialism, perhaps? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - I am astonished that this debate has not yet been closed as keep, citing WP:SNOW! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article has changed quite a lot during this AfD discussion, so many of the earlier comments were probably prompted by an older version of the text. Note, for example, that Unomi changed their opinion during the discussion and they now recommend that the article be kept. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Verbal, Tim Dickers, and ChrisO. Sources exist which demonstrate notability. Most notabily is the book that ChrisO brought up, which appears to define certain beliefs as "denialism" in a way comparable to this article. In the article, a careful distinction should be made between denialism and AIDS denialism, as the first is broader viewpoint than the second, and OR should be carefully avoided, as this article's topic is prone to it. Them From Space 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into artificial controversy. It's notable, but it's a specific use of artificial controversy. -moritheil^Talk 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The policy based arguments here show a consensus to delete. I am not convinced anough of the suggested merge target to redirect, but will provide the content on request. Kevin (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Security rogue anti-spyware[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software that is not mentioned at all in the reference provided. Article contains long lists of registry keys and files that software creates, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Possible COI, as user has only created articles on the subject of malware that use the same website as a source. Netalarmtalk 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this. There is nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google for "Cyber Security" and "virus", and you can read all about it. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources about it. The article perhaps needs a better name. Dream Focus 22:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MS Antivirus (malware). It appears to be a clone of this software. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtesan and the Sadhu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NB. Is a self-published book by a non-notable author and the article content is literally copied (with permission) from the book's publicity website. I didn't find any reviews or independent coverage in reliable sources. The reviews/testimonials in the article are copied from the book's website, and/or the book blurb. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 - full text of article is a blatant copyright violation of material published at the book's website. No prejudice against recreation in a non-problematic format, but note that the only reviews I can find are "user-submitted reviews" which appear to have been written by the book's author (including the ones "quoted" on the official website). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Permission for copying the content from the book's website has been logged with OTRS (see note on talk page), so it is not a copyright violation. Notability, and likely WP:COI, issues still stand. Abecedare (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Delete - per WP:N. Permission noted (I didn't know that was a thing that could happen), which removes my CSD#G12 concerns, but leaves the fact that my good faith searches are unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this book. The Google hits are either directory listings or anonymous user-submitted reviews. Without such sources it is unable to pass WP:N and should be deleted as non-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in searches to show that this passes notability for books. -SpacemanSpiff 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published works are seldom notable. Lack of independent sources indicate this is not one of the exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. If someone wants to renominate feel free. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Parente[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, after months this ~~event~~ person is still not consider notable. Leave it to Wikinews to provide us with news stories. Xqe (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a single event, since both the Ponzi scheme and the murder-suicide are notable. Plenty of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large numbers of high quality sources satisfy WP:N, and his alleged involvement in the Ponzi scheme arguably pushes him over WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Also note that sources such as the Baltimore Sun discuss him in the larger context of social stress caused by the economic crisis and in that sense those sources assert that his significance is greater than merely his particular criminal actions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person died before he even established notability. If the police arrested him before and it turned out to be something, then he would be notable. But it never happened. There was no controversy after his death. Xqe (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has already been established; this is a subject involved in multiple events that stand out and that were highly covered. Therefore, you cannot say that after months, he has not been considered notable. Hellno2 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can notability be established when the man died? He was only in the news after his death. Therefore, before his death he was not notable at all. Xqe (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be living to be notable, or accrue your notability while alive. Van Gogh wouldn't have been found to be notable at any time during his lifespan but he's unarguably worth an article today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are differences between Van Gogh and Parente--and if only Wikipedia could take such differences in account. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Van Gogh's much less marginally notable than Parente, and for his contributions to society rather than his crimes. But the principle stands that Parente is significantly covered in multiple, reliable sources for reasons that transcend WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and being dead really has no impact on that. (If anything it makes notability easier to establish as the standard of sourcing required for living persons is marginally higher than that for the deceased.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I said delete last time, and the time before that. This thing has references, all from newspaper articles and websites, but still, there is no doubt that this is "notable" according to our current standards, even if those standards also make this place a newspaper archive, where yesterday's story is summarized for eternity. But I'm not entirely unhappy: at least the current version of the article does not claim that some people were sad when the guy's family died (check the history if you don't believe me). Drmies (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under A7. Clearcut non-notable band; no need for AfD discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Stewards of Somerset[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails nobility guidelines. Btilm 03:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Papershow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product as far as I can tell Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-trivial, third-party, reliable coverage here, here, here, here, plus a few more here and here. J04n(talk page) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 03:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the ghits, it seems to be a widely known product in several countries. This is confirmed by looking for actual reviews at GNews archive -- I find the same as J04n, and most of them are clearly substantial reviews from RSs. It does not seem the nominator even thought to look. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Museum 3[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, this sort of article should not be necessary until there is actually some amount of plot summary posted at one or more websites related to the film. I would assume that this is far enough from now that the CRYSTAL rule applies, given that it reads as little more than an advertisement. Recommend deletion and recreation once there is more information about the movie. tennis man 03:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:HOAX. Despite the article's extensive claims of a cast list, soundtrack, plot, and release date, I can't find any support for any of the claims anywhere on the internet, including IMDB, which likes a good crystal-ball-gaze as much as anyone. Best I can find is some speculation from last year that there may, at some point, be a Night at the Museum 3 in some form. The sources cited by the article all redirect to information about the NATM 2. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - a Google search for the purported subtitle of "Revenge of Kakmunrah" reveals no hits other than this article. Case closed, IMO. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana's In Utero DVD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nirvana's In Utero DVD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable DVD, not even asserted to exist —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly exists (see here) and given Nirvana's pop culture impact it's probably notable. I'll give the article a tidy, see if I can't save it maybe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've reworked the article now with notable reviews, it should be much better. After the AfD closes, if the result is keep the article will need a name change to reflect the correct DVD title. I would also support a merge to In Utero but I suspect there's enough critical analysis out there for this DVD to keep a stand-alone page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article rescue by DustFormsWords and the cultural significance of Nirvana.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established with coverage here and here. The nom and closing admin should take note of the improvement made in the article since its nomination. Also, as noted above it should be renamed; In Utero: Under Review is how it is listed at Allmusic. J04n(talk page) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD cover actually says "Nirvana - A Classic Album Under Review - In Utero" and then another subtitle under In Utero that I can't read on the low res image, which is different from the Allmusic name, which is different again from the names used in the other reviews. So I guess there's some confusion as to its name; the best path (I think) would be to use the text on the DVD cover and then set up redirects for the other names. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per J04n and use the naming convention per DustFormsWords. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There are multiple claims to notability made on behalf of this topic; including coverage in multiple reliable sources, an independent award and stature comparable to notable topics of a similar nature. While these in themselves are not sufficient to keep the article according to Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, they have not been refuted decisively by editors favouring deletion. As such, recourse to the last resort of deleting this content is inappropriate, and the status quo holds. Skomorokh, barbarian 15:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ithkuil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ithkuil is a constructed language which is apparently only featured in a single Russian language magazine and has a brief mention in an LA Times article. Nearly every relevant hit for "Ithkuil" on Google is from a Wikipedia clone or a conlanger blog or forum, mostly the former. In addition, the possible advantages section is entirely speculation. The article might be well formatted, and Ithkuil is popular in some parts of the conlanging community, but it's not notable anywhere outside of it. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first sentence of your nomination statement establishes the language's notability. Should I assume, by the way, that you would also favor the deletion of Ilaksh, the successor to Ithkuil? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact, I would, if I didn't find nominating articles for deletion so confusing; if Ithkuil goes then I will ask whatever administrator is in charge of this process to put Ilakash through the same rigors. To address your first point, two mentions, one of which is just in passing and the other on a web site in Russian, does not make something at all notable. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There is no particular "administrator in charge of this process". There are, however, lots of editors (admin or otherwise) who would be glad to help you with other AfDs you wish to open. (2) The fact that a site is in Russian has no bearing on whether it can be used to help establish notability. LadyofShalott 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the material presented at the first AfD, including the long sourced articles on the deWP and ruWP . DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only citations used on the German and Russian Wikipedias that aren't present on this one are Livejournal posts and two fan sites. Are we allowed to use those citations here, and if not, is it appropriate to refer to the De and Ru wikis? I'd also like to point out that some of the contributors to this article are language enthusiasts who speak many languages and it is possible that they also created the pages for this language on the other wikis, which means that referring to them to indicate notability isn't valid. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strictly, any Wikipedia articles should not be used to indicate notability as they are publicly edited. (Blogs and forum posts are similarly discountable.) They may be used as extra backup to reliable third party sources, and as links for further information. As to the article in question, I've not had time yet to investigate the plethora of ghits. Maybe tomorrow night (if a retirement do for a colleague doesn't last too long...) Peridon (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Russian magazine gives it a thorough coverage, and, let's be honest, no one pays attention to the "multiple" part of the general notability criterion. Wiwaxia (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ithkuil is only talked about in two paragraphs of the article and the word "Ithkuil" only appears four times, twice in the text itself and twice in a citation which is a link to the creator's website. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Quijada interview in the same magazine: http://offline.computerra.ru/2009/17/. Plus, he’s been a guest speaker at an MIT conference on conlangs, and the Los Angeles Times included a brief quote. Go do your homework, dear pseudonymous user. Ramir (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Quijada spoke twice at the Language Creation Conference, both times at Berkeley. I was the organizer of both, and can attest in my official capacity that Ithkuil is one of the best and most well known conlangs in existence today. Strong keep. Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 16:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would some more people who aren't heavy contributors to the article or members of the conlang community please weigh in on this topic. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, there should be some more people who are impartial to the topic. It seems that for every one outsider who votes there are two contributors or hobbyists themselves who come in and agree with each other without reading what anyone else has said. Hermione is a dude (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I see no evidence to support these claims about those who have made comments in favor of keeping the article. (My own comment below does lack detail, but in fact I read both AfDs twice and thought deeply about the overall situation before writing it; I saw no need to be more specific about the objective arguments, and saw only acrimony to be had from being more specific about the non-objective arguments. So simplicity of a comment does not, in itself, reliably signify lack of study.)
If anyone here reading this hasn't gone back to look at the earlier AfD, BTW, I highly recommend doing so. --Pi zero (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The notability is attested by a couple of articles and a couple of talks at a barely notable conference. Testimonies without substantial written sources are not accepted, sorry. Besides, most of the article is based on primary sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After going through the first 10 pages on our favourite search engine, I decided that most (if not all) of the relevant ghits were either clones, forums or other self-editable things. (Ithkuil is also the name used by the inhabitants of a remote planet somewhere.) I did find one interesting thing - the Articles for Deletion result for this conlang on Indopedia. Yes, I am very well aware that what they do should not influence what we do. However, some of the posters of 'deletes' (there was only one 'keep') claimed to be conlangers - and found this one non-notable. This is not the reason for my decision. I know it is hearsay, and Perry Mason would never base a defence on it..... I !vote delete because of other factors. I quote the article: "No person is hitherto known to be able to speak Ithkuil fluently; Quijada, for one, does not." If no-one can speak it fluently - and I doubt that many can speak it at all - what is the point? I too have designed (more correctly started to...) a language with its own script. I gave up because I decided it was going to be useless. (And I had a load of homework.) More important is the lack of suitable references. Why invent this stuff when existing languages seem to work? And they can be quite concise - as I recall, Yoruba has a single word for 'expecting the return of a deceased ancestor'. (I am open to correction by an expert.) Peridon (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that conlangs never meant to be spoken per se are intrinsically worthless. Consider by contrast thought experiments. Is What Mary didn't know worthless? How about Wilkins' philosophical language? Ithkuil is a philosophical language like Wilkins'; it's intended as an experiment, not to be spoken widely, and evaluating it on the latter criterion is an absurdity. As for "why invent this stuff at all", I refer you to Apologia pro imaginatione and the conlang manifesto. Just because you don't want to spend your time on it, doesn't mean it's insignificant. Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that this one appears to me to be particularly unnotable. As to Wilkins, "Jorge Luis Borges wrote a critique of Wilkins' philosophical language", "In The Search for the Perfect Language, Umberto Eco catches Wilkins himself making this kind of mistake" - notability established. And Mary? A thought experiment by a notable philosopher, and "Mary's Room is a thought experiment that has triggered much debate, and is responsible for much creative thought in the field. Jackson, whether his experiment be accepted or refuted, should be credited with coming up with a brilliant experiment that helped stimulate the minds of many philosophers.". (Quotes from relevant Wikipedia articles.) In my opinion, Quijada is, like his possible namesake, tilting against windmills, but without even the notoriety raised by a bunch of angry millers. Peridon (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the Apologia. Sorry, can't see relevance. It appears to be someone unconnected with this basing an explanation of why he does something on biblical texts. That's his life. OK. As to the manifesto, I'm not objecting to conlangs as such. Some are notable, such as the Tolkien ones. This one is described by people identifying as conlangers as non-notable - and I can't find anything to contradict them. Finally, a comment about the language rather than the article, as someone concerned with both writing and text manipulation, I can't see why a language intended to speed up thought has to be written in such a difficult to write script, and with parts of words implicit rather than explicit. That is leaving things open to the sort of problems that most (if not all) of the Afroasiatic languages have when it comes to old texts. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apologia is relevant to answer your previous question about why people would make languages "when existing languages seem to work", not to Ithkuil in particular. If you understood it as having something to do with biblical texts, you misunderstood it significantly. He is merely taking a religious metaphor of 'creation'.

In any case, I wonder what actual conlangers claim it's non-notable. I'd be quite surprised if you found anyone e.g. on the CONLANG mailing list who would agree with that. Are the aforementioned conlangers members of the community at all? Lacking knowledge of what is notable within conlanging is the only explanation I can think of for this claim. (Mind, this isn't intended as an insult to said people; there are certainly plenty of actual conlangers who are completely unaware of the existence of a community thereof, and therefore unaware of anything but a sliver that happens to hit mainstream press that they read, or be incorporated in a book/show they like, like Klingon or Quenya.)

As for the complexity of the script, it's not intended to be fast to write, but rather extremely information-dense to read. Whether that's a good tack to go on "speeding up thought" is something to ask JQ. TTBOMK, that was not one directly of his intended goals, but rather how the Russian journalist who wrote two articles on it decided to spin it. Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any weakening of the objective reasons to keep from the previous AfD, nor any strengthening of objective arguments against. --Pi zero (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with Pi zero. Johan G (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that a lack of speakers shouldn't be the only reason an article about a constructed language should be deleted, but unlike some of the other thought experiments Sai Emrys has mentioned, Ithkuil hasn't been the topic of discussion anywhere outside of a hobbyist's convention and two magazine articles (which, if I am reading Sai Emrys right, were written by the same person). The other defenses brought up in the original AfD have been debunked as well: the GHits are meaningless and the fact that articles exist on the other wikis isn't important. Sai Emrys is attempting to link the statement "Ithkuil is not notable" with "all constructed language articles should be deleted". Conlanging is a legitimate and notable hobby, but not every person's project should get its own article as soon as someone not involved in the hobby mentions it. The difference between the notability of Klingon and of Ithkuil is huge, and saying that one should remain because of the other is like defending the article of an actor whose most prominent role was two lines in a B-movie because Bruce Willis has one, too. Hermione is a dude (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that Ithkuil should remain because of Klingon? My position, at least, is that Ithkuil is among the top most notable conlangs. (I also take issue with your characterization of the LCC as a "hobbyist convention", but I think that's besides the point...) Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 02:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence of this position in the top ratings that we can see? Peridon (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could always ask on CONLANG. Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CONLANG is, IIRC, a mailing list, and has the same problem regarding citeability as forums and blogs do. Also, outright asking them to say whether it is or not notable might constitute Original Research. Hermione is a dude (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that opinions are getting the better of us. I just want to see evidence that will convince me - and I've not seen any yet. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citeability and original research would be concerns if it were proposed to incorporate into the article the results of a question asked on CONLANG. They don't limit what we can do when pursuing an AfD discussion. We can do google searches, analyze the results, and draw conclusions from our analysis. If we want to know what the conlanger on the street thinks about Ithkuil, it's well within our purview to just step out on the street and ask them. --Pi zero (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some more points that attest to the notability of Ithkuil. Ithkuil was winner of the 2008 Smiley Award[66], the most notable and prestigious award handed out to conlangs. Only languages that are widely recognized as masterpieces within the conlang community seem to be handed this award. Also, Ithkuil is one of the languages mentioned in the appendix to Anika Okrent's In the World of Invented Languages.[67] The majority of these are languages so old that basically no one would challenge their notability. Among the more recent, Internet-age conlangs, Okrent only lists "especially noteworthy or well-developed ones – languages that most of the highly regarded conlangers will have heard of". She is not indiscriminate in her inclusion of conlangs on this list. The presence or absence of a conlang of Okrent's list is an objective criterion. If we ever develop a notability guideline for constructed languages, both of these are likely to be accepted as criteria. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wiwaxia's comments. Also: what's this? I see he added another source to the Ithkuil article?! Coolness! Bennett Chronister (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment. Ithkuil was earlier deleted, then a new article was created by a different person who was unaware of the previous creation and deletion. See this page for the first deletion vote. The fact that two different people, neither of whom are John Quijada, thought this article worthy of creation attests to Ithkuil's notability. The first deletion debate was closed as delete by counting votes (no exclamation point before the word "votes" here), completely ignoring Trebor's point about its coverage in independent sources. Also, it was nominated for deletion by Jar Jar Binks, a known troublemaker on the Zompist.com bulletin board. I don't know who this KRUSHER DESTROYER guy is, or what his motives are in arguing zealously for Ithkuil's deletion, so I'm not going to assume bad faith about him, but the earlier deletion nomination seemed to be bad-faith. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (who really should go to bed now)[reply]

Why bother mentioning the bad faith-ness of the previous nomination if not to cast the current one in a bad light? What does Jar Jar Binks' social status on a forum have to do with anything? Also, were you joking about that Smiley Award thing? Hermione is a dude (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the information in this article relevant and inspiring to things I think about and work with. Jikybebna (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Update: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind if Ithkuil and Ilaksh merged. Jikybebna (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, particularly Wiwaxia. A merge might not be out of line, if Ithkuil and Ilaksh are related closely, but the article as it stands is sourced and neutral. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smiley Award The Smiley Award is awarded by one person on a set of criteria that includes "The winner will be a language that, for one reason or another, makes me smile.". This seems to me to be an award that doesn't confer any particular significance other than that David J. Peterson has decided to give it. Does this not come near, if not actually into, the category that blogs, forums and so on come into as concerns notability? Peterson himself "has attempted to create a phonetic transcription system for signing that is ASCII-friendly known as the Sign Language International Phonetic Alphabet (SLIPA)." Quoted from Sign language. But does he come into the rarified category of award givers that includes the Queen of the UK and (presumably - I'm not sure how the American honours system works) the President of the USA? (And I presume both of them have committees, panels and political groups behind their awards...) Peridon (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danyel Gérard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP tagged as such since April 2009. As such, although the article claims to easily pass WP:MUSICBIO, there's no way to verify any of the content. Gazi moff 13:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you followed WP:BEFORE and read the articles, book entries, etc on him? I haven't read through them, but there appear to be a quite a number. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, there may be some out there. But without specifying which ones in particular and ensuring that it still gets updated, it's still an unreferenced BLP. Many thanks,, Gazi moff 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep.~~Strong Snow Keep. Billboard calls him a notable artist, and then there is Hit singles: top 20 charts from 1954 to the present day By Dave McAleer, [68], [69], The MGM Labels: 1961-1982 By Michel Ruppli, Ed Novitsky, Popular music in contemporary France: authenticity, politics, debate By David Looseley, [70], Stardom in postwar France By John Gaffney, Diana Holmes, and then I got tired. A google search reveals many, many similar sources reflecting notability under WP:BAND, likely under more than one criterion but certainly under criteria 1, 2, and 5.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Epeefleche. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.: The sources identified by Epeefleche have been incorporated into the article which has been expanded. J04n(talk page) 02:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy Night[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUMS. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." The information would (at present) badly disrupt the flow of the Weddings Parties Anything article, there's no discography page, and WP:NALBUMS does not support a delete/redirect in these circumstances. A discography page should be created to merge this into (along with the other similar WPA albums), but that's sadly not something that can be mandated during the AfD process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discographies aren't dumping grounds for the contents of redirected album pages, I know it says that (probably needs to be reworded), but it does not mean copy and paste the article into a specially created discography page. The releases should obviously be listed, but if they are only a track listing, then it is pointless to tell someone to do this - track listings aren't permitted to be in discographies. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One point I want to mention: MOS:DISCOG is a proposal not a policy. There isn't and to the best of my knowledge never has been any consensus to exclude tracklistings from discographies. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst trying hard not to be too cynical, I find it hard to believe that the nominator can not find significant coverage for the album. The article includes a link to Allmusic which is a strating point. The album is signficant as it was the last album by the band before they broke up in 1998. Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not being able to find significant coverage seems like a very odd reason to delete a page. The recent edits by Dan arndt appear to illustrate the album's notability; an extensive review by Allmusic and McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop appear to support an album which already passed WP:NALBUMS. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very odd reason? Being by a notable musician doesn't make an album automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Kiac.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Schäfer (actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. Currently references no reliable sources in order to demonstrate the actor passes WP:ENTERTAINER Gazi moff 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reserving my opinion for the moment. Search engine users will struggle with the fact that there are various Willy Schäfers, mostly with German-language sources, and should bear in mind that the alternative spelling "Willy Schaefer" is perfectly valid in German. It's also unclear if "Willy" is an abbreviation for, say, "Wilhelm".
The German Wikipedia version (here) is about Willy Schäfer the actor and not Willy Schäfer the olympic handballer, which is usually a good sign for notability, and I see it's been edited by a number of users and flagged revisions have been approved. But de.wiki has a different culture when it comes to sources. (Basically, on en.wiki you can write it if there's a reliable source, whereas on de.wiki you can write it if other editors think it's true and encyclopaedic.)
What this article needs, to be kept on en.wiki, is a reliable source and I haven't found one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ishfaq Mughal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. In addition, text does not signify why the subject is particularly notable. Creator suggests article was created by the subject. Possible speedy candidate under CSD A7, but due to age has been brought here instead. Gazi moff 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a journalist; I therefore examined the article with the criteria at WP:CREATIVE in mind. This reporter, to the best of my knowledge, meets none of the criteria laid out at WP:CREATIVE; moreover, this article does not assert that its subject meets any of the criteria laid out at WP:CREATIVE. An unsourced BLP to boot. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lorenz Johnson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The following nomination is included in this AfD:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promoting autobiography of social nudity activist and a biography of an associate, principally authored by the same editor. Both fail WP:GNG. Daniel Lorenz Johnson occasionally receives brief mentions in local Seattle media. Terri Sue Webb was arrested a couple of times in 2001-02 for riding a bicycle while nude and received ephemeral press coverage at the time. Neither rises to the level of meriting a separate article, and neither article would exist without the work of one editor who is also the subject of one of the articles. The articles appears to have been created as a vehicle to promote causes by piggybacking on the popularity of a top-ten website rather than because their subjects are inherently noteworthy.

--Rrburke^(talk) 15:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Johnson. Apparently sufficient sourcing for him as a central figure in numerous events. I'm not sure about Webb. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bigg Boss (Season 3). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Sawant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only claim to notability is participant of the reality show Bigg Boss (WP:1E)and as mother of Rakhi Sawant. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigg Boss (Season 3), where she was a participant. No independent notability and WP:BLP1E applies. Abecedare (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to above. Fails notability.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kin Selection and Human Cooperation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod.

Not an encyclopedia article. Someone's research paper: a random collection of facts. WP:Synthesis. Drdisque (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder per WP:OR. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Not an encyclopedia article. Someone's research paper:..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.166.31 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus Any merger or redirect discussion can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Verma[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONEEVENT, a participant of reality showBigg Boss. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fictional character. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg_Boss_(Season_3). Not independently notable as a fashion designer. In fact, this article claims that he faked being a designer, and is unknown in those circles; however this should not be used as a basis for a wikipedia article per WP:BLP and redirect is the best option. Abecedare (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Sebastian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To Left Behind (series). Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Left Behind (series), or merge with the other characters into List of Left Behind characters. Deletion seems unnecessary here, especially if the characters can be combined into one list. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Miklos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Left Behind (series). Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Left Behind (series), or merge with the other characters into List of Left Behind characters. Deletion seems unnecessary here, especially if the characters can be combined into one list. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. According to the last comment, a disambig would be more in place here. So I am not leaving a redirect. If anyone is interested in merging, let me know so that I can provide the content. Tone 14:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Toy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notability guideline, no third-party sources provided. *** Crotalus *** 16:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ming Toy is the name of a number of prize-winning dogs dating back to the 1920s, and a variety of characters in plays and movies, also dating back to the 20s. The only thing I can't find is substantive analysis of this particular Ming Toy character. This Left Behind series must be awful, racist, derivative crap. This Ming Toy article should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Abductive (reasoning) 10:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Left Behind (series). Tone 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hassid[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Left Behind (series). Tone 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ritz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Smith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable minor fictional character with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Left Behind (series). Tone 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Wong[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Left Behind (series). Tone 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al B[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a suitable combined list, as usual for characters in fiction. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to a list, as described above by DGG. I would make the list (if it doesn't exist already), but I know nothing about the Left Behind series, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Sebastian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Left Behind (series), or merge with the other characters into List of Left Behind characters. Deletion seems unnecessary here, especially if the characters can be combined into one list. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda White[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Left Behind (series), or merge with the other characters into List of Left Behind characters. Deletion seems unnecessary here, especially if the characters can be combined into one list. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Left Behind (series). Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. M. Delanty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Left Behind (series), or merge with the other characters into List of Left Behind characters. Deletion seems unnecessary here, especially if the characters can be combined into one list. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Charles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Left Behind (series), or merge with the other characters into List of Left Behind characters. Deletion seems unnecessary here, especially if the characters can be combined into one list. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic electronic media in Pakistan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a single purpose account back in 2006. Argues a point, rather than informing readers. Contains lot of 'unusual' phrases about 'true Islam' and the like; and I'm not even sure that the topic itself is due an article. There are several sections that can be salvaged for use in other articles, but as it stands, it's completely unsourced and rather PoV. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced essay - Whpq (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. The article is not written from a neutral point of view and would need a complete rewrite to achieve that. If the article received a significant rewrite during the AfD period, I might reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay -Drdisque (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G6 by Malik Shabazz. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Blackwell (disambiguation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so serves no purpose Boleyn3 (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator. If other historic Elizabeth Blackwells are located and are to be added, the page can return. Warrah (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:DAB. Joe Chill (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete with {{db-disambig}}, relatively new change to speedy. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G6 by Malik Shabazz. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hunt (disambiguation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote at primary to only other entry. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need for this page, nor is it a likely redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete with {{db-disambig}}, relatively new change to speedy. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G6 by Malik Shabazz. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chauncey Black (disambiguation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Unnecessary page per MOS:DAB; already a hatnote on primary to only other entry, so this serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary. Should change the otheruses template at Chauncey Black (singer) to suggest Chauncey Black, obviously, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete with {{db-disambig}}, relativly new change to speedy. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G6 by Malik Shabazz. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Boni (disambiguation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete unnecessary page per mos:dab, already a hatnote on primary to only other entry. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tempted to speedy it as housekeeping, but that'd be a stretch. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete with {{db-disambig}}, relativly new change to speedy. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afranet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

People have tried speedy-deletion and prod-tagging this article. Reliable sources are non-existent. I don't see it as particularly noteworthy; it claims to be a Iranian internet provider and to have 103 employees. But I could be convinced otherwise.Abductive (reasoning) 18:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, original AfD read "Sources are non-existent." This was changed by the nominator to the current nomination.[71] --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources aren't non-existent. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This "new" user has singled out my AfDs, and only my AfDs, for opposition, for reasons that are unclear to me. There are no independent, reliable sources for notability for this company, although it may be that Google is confused by the fact that the company goes by Arf@net. If this user has some sources, it would be helpful to present them here. Abductive (reasoning) 21:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I can post the sources in the article, not here. Your nomination is inaccurate. I am correcting the inaccuracy. You claimed at first that "sources are non-existent" you changed your nomination after you nominated the article to "reliable sources are non-existent." Neither is true.
  - I'll point out that your very first edit appears to be an AfD,[72] so I'm not so sure why you, of all people, would attempt to dismiss a new user from AfDs. And your second edit. And your third edit. If there is an issue about new users and AfDs then please link to show me that I can't participate in AfDs. Otherwise stick to the topic. The topic is the deletion of this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I am a returning editor. Is that why you have selected me for special attention? You have one non-independent source, the autobiographical thumbnail here. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you are being wikihounded there are places to take that. If this is not an AfD, please withdraw it. Your decision. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean, this is not an AfD? You seem to be attempting to disrupt/divert the normal course of my AfDs. Other people may need to take that into consideration here. Perhaps you are trying to bait me into doing some act, I'm not sure what. Abductive (reasoning) 23:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You keep going off topic about me, so keep wondering, is this an AfD, or something else? If it's not an AfD, if it's about me, then you need to withdraw the AfD and go after me elsewhere. Your nomination was inaccurate. You seem to be nominating academics and others based on faulty criteria. I disagree with your faulty criteria. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable sources or even teensy news reports on this. Searched google, google news, and translated some hits in Persian as well. The playground squabble above amuses me, but is unproductive IP69.226.103.13--Milowent (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any decient links for this either. I see potential for some notability, but without the reliable sources it can't really be kept, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 00:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krieg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Has been unsourced since March 2008 and still doesn't meet WP:V. Lack of sourcing also causes problems when trying to prove it meets WP:BAND. Many thanks, Gazi moff 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Gazi moff 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group has a biography at MusicMight ([73]) and has been covered a few times by Blabbermouth.net ([74], [75]). Coverage by major publications within the genre, along with the extensive connections the group has with other well-known groups in the genre, indicates it passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not worth referencing this per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, unless the article is updated to reflect it. If it is, I'm happy to withdraw but for now it remains completely unreferenced. Many thanks, Gazi moff 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add a general link to Google Books or some such aggregator: I gave specific links to third-party sources. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the article itself remains. Gazi moff 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Chubbles may be getting at, and what I was trying to say in the above Danyel Gérard nomination where I asked if you had done a WP:BEFORE check, is that under that guidance the onus is actually on the nom to "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist." I think that the way you are approaching it is the opposite--as thought you don't have a WP:BEFORE obligation to check for sources, but can simply nom an article for AfD if the article itself doesn't reflect the sources--and then ask the respondents who are saying that there are in fact sources (the check you should have done) that it is their obligation to put them in the article. But its sort of the other way around--in the sense that it is actually the nom's obligation to look first for the sources before nominating the article. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always check for sources before nominating something for delete, but if it's either not straightforward or clear if there are good quality or reliable sources, I almost always take it to AfD. Tagging doesn't help - the article has been tagged for failing WP:V for over a year. In fact, it still fails WP:V - it really grids my gears when people state that they have found sources but don't update the article and add them. The article gets tagged for lacking sources, and we all go round the AfD loop again. If you have found sources, add them to the article. Don't just trumpet them here as it doesn't solve the fundamental problem - we have a policy called WP:V and currently it fails it. Hope this makes sense. Gazi moff 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a route to force article improvement, and it grinds my gears when people use it that way. Being unverified is not the same as being unverifiable, but many treat them the same way. I guess the times, they are a-changin', and many regular editors seem to agree with that, but I think it does far more harm than good. Chubbles (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to send an article to WP:INCUBATE. It's not an option that I myself have taken yet, but I have been thinking about. I haven't given this article a good enough looking over to make an assessment yet but have been planning to. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but there are two problems here. Tagging isn't the solution - editors or wikiprojects aren't doing cleanup drives to go through tagged articles and source them or delete them as appropriate. Leaving notes on Wikiproject talk pages isn't the solution either - I've done both in the past and again, they've either been ignored or archived. Not everyone is an expert in a particular field either - I'm good at finding sources on computing and telecoms related topics, but not so great at finding sources on scholars, historians and musicians. Unfortunately the only way to get peoples attention these days and highlight articles that have problems is to take them to AfD. I understand that it's annoying, but freuently it's the only way to get people to either fix the problem or remove it. I guess I do agree with you, times are indeed a'changin. Gazi moff 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Chubbles said. When I clicked on Google news and Google books for your Danyel Gérard AfD above, the refs came pouring out. The reason I posed my question is that it struck me that if you had done the same and spent three minutes culling through them, you would have seen notable sources, and not brought the AfD. I therefore wondered if you hadn't understood that that was what was required of an AfD nom. I now gather that maybe you're just seeing the sources, but think this is a cool/effective way to force Chubbles and others to put citations in articles that are lacking them. I agree that that's not what AfD is for.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, deal with it. If tagging, talkpage notices and so on don't result in an article being improved, but AFD does, guess what happens. Don't like it? Then start actually responding to tagged articles, instead fo waiting till it comes to AfD then crying foul. If AfD ends up beign the only tool to ensure something gets fixed, don't be surprised if it becomes the default tool. You can bleat WP:BEFORE all you like, doesn't mean things get fixed. Gazi moff 18:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, AFD is for articles about subjects that one does not believe belong in this encyclopedia. It's not for cleanup. WP:BEFORE fixes an awful lot of articles when its used, and prevents several other editors using up their time at AFD. Tagging articles does help in a lot of cases - I've fixed several articles on my watchlist that other editors have tagged. If a good faith attempt to find sources was made but didn't find any, fair enough, but please be clear about what AFD is for.--Michig (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then how comes this has been tagged for over a year without anyone coming in to look at it until now, eh? Gazi moff 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't on my watchlist, presumably wasn't on the watchlist of any of the other editors who have improved it, and those with an inclination towards improving such articles have perhaps been too busy trying to prevent articles from being deleted at AFD.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny! Humor aside, Wikipedia:There is no deadline and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress bring up some good points in this regard, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just enough coverage of the band found, and Krieg mainman Imperial went on to join the Metal supergroup Twilight.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above mentioned references; Blabbermouth and Music Might plus Sputnik and the Daily Herald have all been incorporated into the article which has been expanded and cleaned up. J04n(talk page) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy A[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future film... Fails WP:NFF... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the production of this film doesn't meet WP:N yet. dissolve ^talk 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage of this film in reliable sources allow that it appears one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF, per Cinema Blend, Variety, CinemaRx (Italian), Variety, IGN, Monsters and Critics, Slash Film, Hollywood Reporter, Cinematical, Cinema Blend, Showhype, Screen Crave, CanMag, Variety, Empire Online, Hollywood Stock Exchange... and quite a few others... all quite suitable for properly sourcing this article, and allowing it to grow through the course of normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter source indicates that the film is in postproduction, but per WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Which of these sources do you feel meets the standard of notability for the actual production of the film and not just the announcement/casting? dissolve ^talk 05:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF was set up because proposed or announced films might never make it past the planning stage, and until filming begins remain as speculation. Since you shared the key inclusion criteria of WP:NFF in "...unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", a better question, specially since principle filming has finished and it is now documented as in post-production, of the ones I found speaking toward the project, which do you feel fail in meeting the notability requirements of WP:GNG? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm hung up on the vagueness of "unless the production itself is notable". None of these sources are about the actual production of the film. Development & pre-production, sure. Now if what's meant by WP:NFF is: if a film has actually gone into production, and there are multiple reliable sources about it, but not about the actual production process, then it would meet that standard. dissolve ^talk 08:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its any help, the article on Film production explains in pretty fair detail that "film production" covers the entire process of making a film, from its initial story idea or commission, its scriptwriting, its shooting, its editing and its distribution to an audience. So it may be seen that the development & pre-production, as well as actual shooting and release, all fall under the term. The caveats of WP:NFF allow that once a film has entered or completed principle filming, the decent coverage in reliable sources of the various aspects of production is what then might then allow it to meet notability criteria and thus merit an article. Following the caveats are what allow the occasional article on an as-yet unreleased film. If there was no coverage, there could be not sourcable article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well to me and everyone I know in the film business, production refers to the actual production process. If WP:NFF doesn't refer to this, the wording should be changed to be less vague. dissolve ^talk 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being myself active in the film and television industry as an actor, occasional writer, and one-time producer, I take a wider view that includes the entire production process. Development and pre-production are all part of the process of creating a film. When there are differences in personal views on the matter, we defer to existing definitions as provided within these pages. Though WP:NFF might be re-written to exclude the consideration of GNG and the entire scope of a film's creation, this particular film will be by then released and have even more coverage in RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ample sources found by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), such as the Cinematical article, prove that Easy A passes WP:GNG / WP:N. Notability is established. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything with that much news coverage, is notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 09:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GiveVaccines.org[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion tag removed by article creator with no attempt at comment on talk page. Non-notable organisation, can find no substantial reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [76], [77], and [78]. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not convinced that these sources demonstrate WP:Notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The detail: 1 - One mention in passing in a blog, nothing to establish notability of website (GiveVaccones.org); 2 - appears to be written up from the press release, which is reference one in the article; 3 - One mention in passing in an article on World Pneumonia Day on some sort of netowrking site. A thorough reading of WP:Notability will show you why this is nowhere near sufficient, specifically I would mention "significant coverage" and "temporary news coverage". Jezhotwells (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - speedy being removed by the article creator has nothing to do with AFD. In fact, the full history is that the article creator removed the speedy that I added, and they were duly warned. Then an admin did some work to improve the article and I removed my db-spam speedy because it was no longer spam. Then that same admin added an A7, but after I added a few (albeit weak) references the admin removed the speedy tag. Notability is questionable at best, I agree, but this discussion should not even consider the speedy history. Weak GNEWS hits but 6000+ ghits. 7 01:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits have nothing to do with establishing notability. In fact Google News archive search shows 5 hits [79], two of which have nothing to do with GiveVaccines.org. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, so not notable. Reprints of press releases aren't independent coverage. A mention in the GAVI Alliance article might be appropriate. Fences&Windows 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kervin Raymond Madungwe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable individual. I can find absolutely no reliable sources which would establish the notability of Madungwe. In fact I can find no sources at all. Given that there are assertions of notability in the article, I have opted to bring this to AfD rather than request speedy deletion under criterion A7. Also it appears that the article creator is the subject so there are conflict of interest issues as well. Crafty (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found for this person, with or without middle name. Not eligible for speedy, but fails WP:V and WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, Speedyable IMHO but I think anything that reeks of vanity is Speedyable -Drdisque (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrize A. Maballo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, what the heck is Miss Bugho? User234 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bugho is an old name for Javier, Leyte, so the subject's claim to fame appears to be to have won a local beauty competition in a town with a 2007 population of 23,453. This certainly isn't enough to satify the "notable award or honor" clause of WP:ANYBIO, and there is no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The external link is to the front page of a local social networking site with no indication of its relevance to the subject, and the book reference doesn't provide enough information to identify it. I have tried to find it via Woldcat and Google Books but couldn't. The searches linked above and the same without the middle initial find nothing (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). My guess is that someone has found some old photographs of their grandmother and has created this article as a means to display them to the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Phil Bridger. Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Girls' Generation. Kevin (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SeoHyun[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. She's a member of a popular girl group in Korea; however, that doesn't make her notable by herself. Although she has done a few activities outside of the group (well, one single), she hasn't done much to establish herself as...well, herself, not just a member of Girls' Generation. All the relevant, non-trivial info is already on the main group page. Plus, this page has no sources. SKS (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect, agree w/ SeoHyun 龗 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above editor has just been blocked as a sock.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources showing notability. ~YellowFives 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— YellowFives (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. It would be good to hear from some Korean editors with access to Korean papers.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (Since I nominated this page, there's clearly a conflict of interest here...) She does exist in Korean Wikipedia. Trouble is, it's not much beyond a list of group commercials, group songs, group TV shows, and nicknames for her. Also, the top of the page has the Korean equivalent of Template:BLP dispute (or ko:틀:인물 in Korean Wikipedia). That said, considering that Girls' Generation is an extremely popular girl group in Korea, you will get Google News hits (when searching for "SeoHyun" and "Girls' Generation"). Enough for a standalone page?...I don't know. SKS (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night 21[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero indication or sources to show that this event will be a Fight Night as opposed to a full UFC card Paralympiakos (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Old article (Jul 17, 2009) and the UFC frequently changes their plans, especially those for overseas shows (anyone remember the major card in the Phillipines this year?)(Justinsane15 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetchcomms (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The relist page says if there are only 1 or 2 comments about it, then it gets relisted. There are 3 here. It should have been deleted today instead of a relist, meaning a weeks wait. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Anna Lincoln 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article still hasn't been deleted LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.24.134 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jan 2010 - New reason for deletion[edit]

This page now needs a fresh delete. The problem is, there was a valid article with this name ("UFC Fight Night 21") but new evidence has meant that UFC Fight Night 22 is now to be called UFC Fight Night 21, as UFC on Versus: Vera vs. Jones was ONCE 21, but is now not. Unfortunately, a straight rename of 22 is not possible as there are many redirects blocking the move.

As such, I would like to request the deletion of redirects "UFC Fight Night 21" and "UFN 21" so that the proper page UFC Fight Night 22 can be moved to its correct title of UFC Fight Night 21. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Hit Sports Show[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long term unreferenced article about a show on a college TV station. Very unlikely to be notable. Not much of anything about it in Google. Not verifiable. DanielRigal (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be about some sort of promotion from my perspective. -- ISLANDERS27 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' back to IUP-TV. No seperate notability has been shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local program. Sarilox (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:NOT#NEWS \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Belleville school bus beating[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically a report of a piece of nasty schoolboy bullying (perhaps with racist overtones). Unfortunately that' s not particularly uncommon. It got some news coverage, but there's no evidence of political cultural results or any lasting impact. The article clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS.

I prodded this as an uncontroversial deletion (so I thought), but it appears someone wants it kept. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry – Belleville, Illinois, not Belleville, Ontario -- Eastmain (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:N/CA, we need to see significant coverage in sources with national or global scope to show notability. I don't see much coverage outside of St Louis, so I don't see that this article meets the guideline. Kevin (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article reports that the incident was picked up on by the Drudge Report and by Rush Limbaugh, suggesting that it is a national story. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Dozens, probably hundreds, of stories hit the networks, nevermind online sources every single day. A much smaller number will have the lasting significance to make them encyclopedic. Can you show any evidence of durability beyond the usual news cycle here? WP:NOTNEWS should not be subverted simply by saying "ah, but this really was news". We need something more.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete event of fleeting (and primarily regional) importance -Drdisque (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have no plans to expand the article, but there is plenty there to do so if an editor chooses. The strongest reason to keep it I feel is the involovment of the NAACP in the aftermath. I don't know that much about it, but I hear it was pretty significant. -OberRanks (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to create a WP:NOTLOCALNEWS essay which branches off WP:NOTNEWS. These stories happen all the time, the kids were rightfully expelled and charged and life goes on. No further sources and it probably won't go further than the initial burst. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Wow, if we had an article for every incident of racial violence that got noticed by the national press, I'd start nominating them myself. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, we would have an article on 2009 Floral Park robbery incident [80], or 2009 Orange mobile home park shooting incident [81] or 2009 Bismarck cat theft and fish murder incident [82]. After all, they've all had articles written on them, right? -Drdisque (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is probably saying, right now, "Hey, that's a good idea" Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Lugnuts (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOT#NEWS and for failure of WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but include a brief account of the event in Belleville, Illinois and/or in a new article (to be created) about the Belleville school system. Nothing I've read indicates that this is anything more than a news story that is of fleeting interest outside of the local area (something to fill the pages on a slow news day, not a notable event to memorialize in an encyclopedia). --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most murders aren't covered on Wikipedia, and assaults are even more commonplace. Some coverage in the current affairs network does not mean a lasting impact. WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Please note that the incident involved minors and has the potential to be a BLP nightmare. --Jmundo (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Limbaugh has made this into national news. See this from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/opinion/main5508478.shtml -- Eastmain (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure he'll talk about it until the next racial incident comes along. Mandsford (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a minor incident of school bullying which excited some local Neo-Nazis, but didn't get significant coverage beyond a burst of stories in the St. Louis press. Definitely covered by WP:NOTNEWS. That CBS opinion piece is all about Rush Limbaugh's obsession with race, with the bus story as one of many examples, so it does not count as significant national coverage. Fences&Windows 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kids fight on school buses. No lasting notability. ~YellowFives 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above rationales concerning WP:NOTNEWS. Them From Space 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EventRSS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Web syndication format for creating social event feed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowcovered[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company; judging from the talk page, author considers this interesting and is creating this and other articles as a coatrack on which to hang his/her original research. Orange Mike | Talk 21:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted, because it is a) a description of a notable and prominent technology company; b) includes relevant academic citations and sources; and c) forms part of technology and entrepreneurship series of articles. The article is also not a 'coatrack' because it is neutral in tone, and can stand alone without further articles. Please reconsider the deletion. Audiohifi (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) — Audiohifi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

response -- That technology and entrepreneurship series of articles constitutes original research; Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Orange Mike - I understand what you mean. I am not however publishing original research on Wikipedia, but rather am adding to the existing content under a general theme. My goal for inclusion of this article in Wikipedia is to both add to the digital distribution channel category, as this is an example of an emerging technology trend, as well as to add to the body of knowledge on entrepreneurship by showing another example of engagement for developers from emerging economies in the global e-commerce environment. Thanks also for pushing me to get citations from outside the site, I went ahead and found more appropriate sources. Cheers, Audiohifi Audiohifi (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the "entrepreneurship" paragraph to remove content that was referenced with blog posts, after learning more about the citation policy. Orange Mike, how else can this article be improved to avoid deletion? Thanks, Audiohifi (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought it could be improved to avoid deletion, I would not have nominated it for an AfD in the first place. AfDs are not supposed to be a forced-improvement mechanism. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial third-party reliable sources with which to build an article on this particular product/company. ~YellowFives 06:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability requirements, as explained above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter B. Wakefield[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm just not seeing any notability in this deprodded article on an assistant professor. Convince me otherwise. Abductive (reasoning) 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability, agree with nom. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article contains stubs about two distinct people with this name. I assume we're talking about Dexter Bernard Wakefield? If he winds up being notable, will definitely need to offload these two to their own pages (I'd say keeping this one as a bio-DAB). DMacks (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The academic DBW is an assistant professor, at a stage when most academics do not yet pass WP:PROF, and there's no sign that he's an exception to this. As for the other DBW, he seems to have written a few magazine articles; that's clearly not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG with no indication of notability, no reliable sources, commercial websites only. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ per the lack of multiple reliable sources. Most of the sources in the article don't even mention this topic. I did find this article (archived link) from The Arizona Republic, but one source is not enough to establish notability. If a second source can be found, I will change my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added to the Arizona Girl Scouts program with Fatcat Ballroom. The fact that a nationally syndicated agency has a program setup with the company adds validity to the article being kept for inclusion. Neuromancer (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this page is a program page that mentions Fatcat Ballroom only in passing. Furthermore, it is from a source that is not independent of the company. For this article to be kept, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Can you find another article about Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company in a newspaper or magazine? Cunard (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference added to Arizona Central New Year's Eve Events. Neuromancer (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the additional source, but it does not provide significant coverage. This source only lists Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company as the location of a fundraiser. Sufficient sources that provide nontrivial coverage would be sources such as this source that I mentioned in my initial comment. Fatcat Ballroom is the main topic in that article. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is an FCC licensed radio station program interview considered significant coverage? It is a 10 min, 30 second interview of the owner, and it was a statewide broadcast on July 30th, 2008. Neuromancer (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider that interview significant coverage. The interview, coupled with The Arizona Republic source, pushes this company over the notability guidelines for companies. Therefore, I have changed my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neuromancer (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify my listing in light of subsequent changes to the article: AfD per WP:ORG, WP:SPAM. One brief article in a local newspaper and an interview of one of the founders on a local radio station do not seem to establish notability through "significant coverage" as required by WP:ORG. The remaining four sources for this article are of the type specifically deprecated by "Primary criteria" in WP:ORG: "(for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories". There is a business by this name, but notability has not been established. Additionally, evidence suggests that the author, User:Neuromancer, is conflicted. This article was the first contribution by the user, and early versions contained WP:BLP-violating and other unsourced information about individuals associated with the business, including a claim of a secret love affair. This information, unavailable in any given source, appears to have been based on personal knowledge, and the user has also placed him- or herself in the Phoenix, Arizona area by editing from a local IP address during a block for disruptive editing. It looks like spam, and I suspect it is. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is most certainly not spam, and the insinuation otherwise is inappropriate. Yes, this was my first article to WP. Yes, I know of the studio. No I am not affiliated with the studio. I chose an innocuous topic in which to write an initial article, and as I am sure you can see, it went through a number of revisions as I honed my skills on WP. Neuromancer (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article conforms to notability guidelines for companies and does not violate any WP policies or guidelines. Neuromancer (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails relevant notability guidelines (no sig coverage in anything other than local rags). Verbal chat 21:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage on the radio station mentioned, and in newspapers. And is associated with a major organization like the Girl Scouts. Dream Focus 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the business is not associated with the Girl Scouts. A local Girl Scouts chapter had an event there. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - [83] They have a page for them, but don't mention much there. Did you read Neuromancer's arguments at the top about this, the news paper(which is for a city and thus coverage notable),[84] and the radio station interview[85]? I think that's the main thing. Dream Focus 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:ORG. Local minor news mentions only, no significant coverage outside of its own area. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails org.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews [86]. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company seems to be of only local significance. Them From Space 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maisigandi Kshetra Charitra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was prodded and deleted in September with the rationale: Non-notable documentary film with no references. It was recreated today and nothing changed. I still can't find any reliable sources confirming notability. Google Search result is not helpful. What do others think? Vejvančický (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found before this AFD closes. I didn't find anything useful in English, but sources may exist in Telugu. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find anything to show notability, under a few different transliteration spelling variations. -SpacemanSpiff 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Rogerson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. I could only find 7 mentions of her in the media in the last 10 years. that is not enough indepth coverage to justify notability. [87]. and simply being the founder of an organisation with zero coverage does not make her notable [88].LibStar (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _{-- Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple references, which is enough to demonstrate notability. Counting Google hits is not the best way to determine notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used Google news which is far more reliable than google. I really don't think 7 mentions of her in the media in the last 10 years meets the bar for WP:BIO. feel free to prove me wrong with evidence of substantial coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 sources is not significant coverage. All I could find 7 mentions of her in the media in the last 10 years. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, going to have to disagree with LibStar here; two separate sources in major Australian newspapers, and one from the national broadcaster, are easily enough to meet WP:BIO in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the references in the article are about the cause Ms Rogerson is involved with, and not about her. As such, they don't come close to satisfying WP:BIO. For instance, none of them give her date of birth, information about her schooling, career prior to her current role, any other significant achievements, family, etc. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sure, the references mention her in connection with her cause; she is notable for co-founding The Lizard Children's Centre, not for being born in 1964. That being said, there should be sources for the statements regarding her personal information. Favonian (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closing as speedy keep and WP:SNOW (by nominator). LibStar (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Crawford[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. hardly any coverage for her "best known" role [89]. or her current TV role [90]. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) t[reply]
Keep Notable actress with notable roles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable actress with notable roles. And to expand (lest I be told that an essay invalidates my comment), among her many notable projects I note that she is a significant character in 8 episodes of Neighbours and in 27 episodes of City Homicide which allow her to meet WP:ENT's requirement that she has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Guideline encourages that her article will improve the project by being allowed to remain and further grow over the due course of time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Since when is being in 27 episodes of an award-nominated national television show non-notable? Article makes a notability claim, so ask for sources, don't delete. - BalthCat (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject certainly seems notable to me. --Roisterer (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects LibStar, your twice using an essay to claim another's opinion as invalid does not take into consideration that the editors may very well have read the article or looked at sources or considered other comments here before offering their own succint answers. While you might wish more from them, their opinions, specially in context to other editor's comments, are valid even without expansion. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if the editor has actually read the sources and article they should say that in an AfD, this is a simple courtesy and helps the closing admin as well. simply saying it's notable provides zero evidence is hardly helpful. they've considered other aguments I've seen often the same editor habitually write "it's notable" on numerous AfDs...you have to wonder if they're actually even reading the AfD or article. one editor who seemed not to like my nomination of various unrelated articles simply popped up at each one and said "it's notable". LibStar (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that editor will in the future provide a bit more of an explanation. Please know that I can understand your comment, specially considering the number of times I have myself seen a succinct "non-notable" as entirety of a comment at AFDs by editors other than yourself. I believe what we both would like are better explanations so that points might be further discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

totally agreed. I don't want AfDs to be WP:JUSTAVOTE. simply saying "it's (non)notable" is totally insufficient. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, the substance of several of your recent AfD nomination statements appears to be "does not meet WP:BIO" (with no explanation for how you reached that conclusion, apart from a link to a search which you have restricted to Google News archives), and yet you seem to be chastising others for stating that the subject is notable and using Google links to demonstrate. I agree with you that just saying "it is notable" is a pretty weak argument and should be discouraged, but perhaps it would help your argument if you demonstrated more clearly how the subjects do not meet the criteria for inclusion or notability. --Canley (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a nominator in some cases, if you don't like my nomination feel free to provide arguments against. Google news is good way of finding media articles on sources. I generally do not use google, as mirror sites and passing mentions come up a lot. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with those above. Her roles do clearly prove she is notable. Dream Focus 03:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT with "significant roles in multiple ... television shows". Recurring cast member of City Homicide, Home and Away and Neighbours, main cast member of Breakers – the book Super Aussie Soaps by Andrew Mercado interviews her about a controversial lesbian storyline on the show which was mentioned in the Australian parliament – and star of Channel V cross-platform drama Forget The Rules[91]. --Canley (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shifties[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:ONEDAY. A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 00:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - G3 - it's not a quickly growing sport. 7 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MADEUP. Warrah (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristie Jandric[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. gets only limited mention in the media [92] but not enough to pass over the line for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _{– Eastmain (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got access to the June 2005 Inside Sport (Aus) magazine she was on the cover of? Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources that note her work on notable projects is enough for me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

enough for you but she does not have significant coverage that meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Although she only has 4200 google hits, she did meet the nobility guidelines. Btilm 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:GOOGLEHITS is relevant. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nom's own statement: "limited mention in the media [93] but enough to pass over the line for notability." Meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why did you nominate this for deletion if there's "enough to pass over the line for notability"? And why do you question the relevance of Google hits, while linking to a Google News search? --Canley (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS applies to google search. google news is a far better indicator of third party coverage. I meant to say not enough. also you don't seem to say how she meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 12 episodes of Satisfaction and 15 episodes of Neighbours satisfies the "significant roles in multiple ... television shows" clause of WP:ENT. That of course depends on one's interpretation of "significant" and "multiple" which I guess is the main disagreement here, but in my opinion she passes muster. --Canley (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.

[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[3] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.

[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[5] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]